Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashtapradhan

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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn and Speedy close. --Gurubrahma 05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtapradhan[edit]

~~Extremely non-notable, less than 200 Google results, most are WP mirrors.~~ Withdraw nomination, speedy close. Kookykman|(t)e 19:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to the article Peshwa, which is the name of the "prime minister" of this body (see for example the treatment in the entry in the French Wikipedia: [1]). --Lambiam ^Talk 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be kept or transwikify to dictionary entry. The one article linked to it appears to be authoritative. However I know little of Indian History. It should certainly not be deleted too rapidly. Peterkingiron 21:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as highly notable. While Ashtapradhan generates 267 google hits, with the first few hits coming from WP and its mirrors, the string "Ashta Pradhan" generates 411 google hits, the first of these coming from EB. Also, funnily enough, this string was listed as one of entries in the wikiproject on the missing entries of the 1911 EB. Having a council of ministers is no big deal today, but it is definitely big deal for a kingdom in India some 300-odd years before. The article in its current form may read badly, but deletion is definitely not the solution. --Gurubrahma 12:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gurubrahma. Notability is obvious. Please don't use Google hits as a deletion argument. up+land 13:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't overuse the google test to death :) Not everything notable is on the internet, and this is especially true with terms transliterated from a different script, and with things to do with developing countries where internet hasn't reached everyone yet. The topic has a good scope of expansion beyond just the explanation of the term, so merging or shifting to wictionary is not a good solution. deeptrivia (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Massively expanded it, removed the stub cat as well. Also an apology as it was a missing article from EB, not EB1911, as seen here. I also suggest that this be moved to Ashta Pradhan. --Gurubrahma 14:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After the expansion it is a worthy article. As for me, notability was never in question. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep Following its expansion, this is a substantial article. It is not my subject, so that I am not qualified to comment on its accuracy, nor can I comment on the suggested move. The article may require further expansion and wikifying. Peterkingiron 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Gurubrahma. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia citing the current edition of EB as its only reference for an article. Please try to verify the content in other sources as soon as possible. up+land 23:26, 18 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.