Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajiv Dixit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article, as mentioned, does need fixing to remove the issues of COI and unsupported claims. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Dixit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know if this guy is prominent enough to merit his own article. Most of what is out there on the net about Rajiv Dixit appears to have been written by Dixit himself. *Kat* (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find significant coverage in RS--Sodabottle (talk) 06:25, (UTC)

We can't just deny him because he is one of the big leder of Swadeshi movement and currently running Bharat Swabhiman Trust By Swami Ravdev Ji. Yes it is correct that there is lack of information to support him but i am trying to collect the more info and will update it soon.. but it will require time....... media and other people dosen't helight him bcs as he supports Swadeshi movement all this people hate him but that't dosen't mean that he is not a prominent person --Sandeep (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had added many sourced content so please check it --Sandeep (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sandeep most of the sources you have added are blogs, forum posts and primary sources. There is not indepth coverage about Dixit in reliable sources. Only the TOI link has some coverage on him. Rest are all trivial/passing mentions of him. We need non-trivial significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG criteria.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My friend i am posting few links hear which i had used and i will like to know that on what basis you consider that as blogs

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FF29Df02.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/First-swadeshi-superstore-in-Vadodara-soon/articleshow/1671834485.cms
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=107&page=25
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Decentralise-taxes-says-Azadi-Bachao-Andolan-supporter/articleshow/39792390.cms

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=107&page=25

http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/28/stories/2007012801030700.htm

Do you consider all this links and sources as blog or unreliable. My friend there are so many articles on wiki which are there without a single source or just a few no reliable source and against that i have so many credible source to prove that Rajiv Dixit must be given space hear let this article there and act neutral give it some time if you still fill that article requires move sources and then it will be among a well build article. Instead of helping me all hear everyone is behind deletion of article... I think my friends you must read the policy of deletion of article because there is clearly mentioned that when can an article is considered to be get deleted and one more point is also mentioned there that be neutral and every new article looks bad in the begining but later it become nice as time passes. So don't you think that this article must be covered under that case ??? --Sandeep (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above sources constitute "non-trivial significant coverage". Mostly they mention his name and position. For wikipedia purposes that is not significant coverage.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He does appear to be cited in mainstream publications as a spokesperson for his various movements. However, the article needs to modify some of its claims. For example it cites him as the "founder of the Swadeshi Movement," but he is 100 years too young to have founded the Swadeshi Movement; maybe it could say "one of the founders of the Swadeshi consumer movement." (I say "one of" because the Times of India cites him and another person as leaders of the modern movement.) I tidied up the language and deleted a few of the more extreme/unsupported claims. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considered for deletion just highlights certain "Ulterior" motives perhaps sponsored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.172.29 (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (Note: this comment is the first and only Wikipedia post by this user.)[reply]

Riiiiiight. I spent half an hour cleaning it up, only to decide that it might need to be deleted because I have ulterior motives. Nice one. --*Kat* (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanienN......Thanks for your help in editing the article i had added few claims which backed with proof and i think which you might have deleted in mistake.

I think that now this article must get some time to be modified. I think sooner we will get editors who will be contributing and will help us in building this article. I think that this deletion proposal must be withdrawn now.--Sandeep (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These thing aren't "withdrawn", they are closed.--*Kat* (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had added few more content with backed up sources and links so please let me know if there is any issue in the new additions. I will again request that this article must survive as really holds and important aspect in some movements in India Currently as i had stated in the article with proof that Rajiv Dixit is the national Secretary of Bharat Swabhiman started by Swami Ramdev which in current period is a prominent movements in indian politics,soical structure etc.--Sandeep (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found it as notable, worth keeping, some references from media like time of india. If anything need to fix then tag article. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article reeks of slobbering fan boy syndrome, but the subject appears to have sufficient coverage to pass our notability criteria. Someone with some amount of patience (more than I possess) will have to spend some time neutralizing the article. —SpacemanSpiff 08:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, holding my nose, keep per Spaceman.--*Kat* (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friends. I know the article have various issues but we together with your help can improve it--Sandeep (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC) So can i proceed and remove the tag of deletion and tag it with some other necessary tags --Sandeep (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't. An administrator who has not been part of this discussion will make the decision. Until that happens, all of the tags, deletion notices, etc. have to stay in place. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed this comment by the nominator: "Most of what is out there on the net about Rajiv Dixit appears to have been written by Dixit himself." So what you are saying is, Ipse dixit? (Sorry! My philosophy is, leave no pun unturned.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.