Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vithal Balkrishna Gandhi

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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator requests closure. No outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vithal Balkrishna Gandhi

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

I tagged the article for BLPPROD however the tag was removed without any explanation or adding sources about the person. The subject of the article wrote a book, but I still don't see it passing the WP:GNG - that book was also made as an external link. SefBau : msg 07:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN for being member of Lok Sabha. ref1 ref2 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN but need to cleanup.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 10:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW - would seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN and probably WP:GNG. I can't help but question whether WP:BEFORE was undertaken given two of the articles on the first page of regular Google results are detailed reviews of the subject's biography and a Google Books search provides multiple references to the subject's time in the legislature. Stalwart111 11:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pardon me for my ignorance for not doing my own research regarding the article. Can this be close now? As I believe we have clear consensus that it should be kept. Thanks User:Stalwart111 for the tip. SefBau : msg 12:12, 16 August 2013 (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.