Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandit Jagannath Guruji

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 Speedy delete per WP:G5‎. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 15:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Pandit Jagannath Guruji

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Pandit Jagannath Guruji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Source review:

1. Non independent, interview
2. Passing mention
3. Blatant promo (mentions it is part of a 'featured content programme')
4. Non independent
5. Non independent, interview
6. Non independent
7. Blatant promo
8. Non independent, interview
9. Non independent, relies on quote
10. Non reliable
11. Blatant promo

These are the references' states as of Special:Diff/1153035210. Of course, feel free to disagree, but none of these sources meet GNG. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astrology, and India. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. All the cited sources are straight up promotions, same for other news articles about the subject that I've found. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:GNG per nominator. Mooonswimmer 23:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with other !voters that this does not meet GNG. Good source checking by nominator. Agree with their analysis. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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.