Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleem Pahalwan

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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleem Pahalwan[edit]

Not a notable person. Google search only brings up this article. Zandarx ^talk 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources provided or found. Unverifiable it seems. Wickethewok 13:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Skinnyweed 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Give editor who originated article a chance to cite sources, and to make article a stub for expansion by other editors with knowledge in this area. Parsssseltongue 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps the first rule of WP: If it can't be verified, it can't be on the site. -- Kicking222 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I feel there are some hardliners who don't realize that not every editor is clear about verifiability guidenlines, and that a notice about "citation needed" or other friendly reminder would be a lot more civil than marking an article for deletion. This article was tagged a mere hour after its creation. Parsssseltongue 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. So far, I've seen no evidence that this cannot be verified, only that it hasn't yet been verified. Given that Aleem Pahalwan is said to have been active in India in the 1940s, it doesn't surprise me that a Google search turns up few, or no, hits. Verification can be done in other ways: references to books, newspapers, etc. I think there's little doubt that this is verifiable, ie it can in, principle, be verified. As such, it should be kept and we should give editors the chance to find and post sources. Wrestling is a big Indian sport but unlike football, field hockey or cricket, it hasn't been covered as much by urban media. Interlingua ^talk 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An issue I have with this is that this guy could very well be made up. It may be theoretically verifiable if someone happens to have an Indian newspaper from the '40s, but for all we know now and most likely will know in the future, its made up. Also, if you read #2 under the official verifiability policy, it states "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." Thus, we are requesting it be removed. Wickethewok 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to a cited re-creation. I have tried several combinations on google with different spellings and yet I've not got more than 5 google hits for each of them (excl. WP & mirrors), and most of them irrelevant. I've done a benchmarking with another Indian body-builder and wresler of that time (who doesn't have a WP article yet) and I got close to 500 google hits. --Gurubrahma 04:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unknown outside Wikipedia. Also, does not really assert notability for the person, only for his ancestors (that also of dubious notability). ImpuMozhi 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence of notability. Unsourced. BlueValour 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BlueValour. Inner Earth 18:01, 26 June 2006 (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.