Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arebhashe gowda

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arebhashe gowda

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

Contested PROD. Initial PROD reason was "Article is a complete mess. The book mentioned appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Most of the given references are about the underlying subject matter of the book, not the book itself." Minima © (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article keeps having large additions and deletions, making it difficult to know which version to comment on, but currently, although it may be a suitable subject for an article, there is a impenetrable wall of text, so poorly written I doubt it could be re-written. The "references" relate to the lead (which is unclear on what the subject is) and the "Notable people" many/most of whom are not notable. The 20,100 words in between are entirely unreferenced - I think it is a case of WP:TNT - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell it's a copy and paste from the self published book by Puttur Anantharaja Gowda, "IN PURSUIT OF OUR ROOTS". It could also be that the author of the book might be the editor of the article in discussion, and so would appear to violate WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Also the topic already exists at Kodagu Gowda and so technically is a A10 CSD anyway. David.moreno72 (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with David, it's an expanded version of Kodagu Gowda and as such eligible for deletion under WP:A10. The 100+k additions would appear to be copy pasted from either other articles without attribution or from online sources. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Arjayay and others, this may qualify for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A10 under the circumstances. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Retain) : It is a History of an Ethnic Group now forming about 2 million people settled in Part of Dakshina Kannada and Kodagu Districts of Karnataka. Sufficient references have been provided. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anantharaja Gowda (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC) — Anantharaja Gowda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I was the original PRODer. The AfD nominator restated my PROD reasons in the nomination and I still fully support those reasons. Safiel (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the book was notable, which it is not, WP:TNT would apply, as the article is an un-salvageable mess. Safiel (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2016 (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.