Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vatula

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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vatula

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

Notability issue. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 08:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2016(UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: would you mind elaborating a bit please and maybe sharing what steps of WP:BEFORE you've taken (and what the results have been)? Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: You can see that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. As per the references there is only one reference that too an image file which is a screenshot of a book. It is not verifiable. It also fails WP:PSTS and WP:CORPDEPTH, which has guidelines for notability of a religion or a religious group.KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The screenshot of a book is a page from Monier-Williams's authoritative Sanskrit dictionary, digitised by a major university. But of course, although verifiable, this doesn't really help with notability. But neither does WP:CORPDEPTH: notability guidelines for organisations aren't relevant to an article that is about an ancient personage and the gotra descended from him. The three general notability guidelines you link to hinge on the existence of coverage in suitable sources. Have you looked for sources beyond the one listed in the article? Uanfala (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I vote to Keep the article as I agree with your view that notability guidelines for organisations aren't relevant for an article about an ancient personage and the gotra descent. I added a few links which User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga should have done before putting up this page for deletion. Getting trigger-happy with deletion without due diligence on the subject matter, the history and relevance is a waste of everyone's time. Do try to be mindful of the other editors efforts before randomly slapping a page with the deletion tag. Thanks.

Delete as fails WP:GNG and is a WP:DICDEF. I have removed one source (Rediff) because it is a mirror of Wikipedia. The others do not discuss it in depth and are basically definitions. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is still nothing minimally better for an actual Wikipedia article, nothing else convincing here at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 21 June 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.