Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budugu

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Budugu[edit]

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

No reliable sources indicate that this character passes WP:GNG. The article was previously prodded by Magnius and deprodded by 59.93.49.51, an IP user, in June 2009. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Delete Not notable enough Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting an explicitly independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here we are running into the usual trouble with articles like this: reliable sources, if they exist, are likely to be mostly in Telugu, a language that neither I, nor, I'd assume, the other participants in this discussion can read. Apart from a reference in a 1957 survey of Telugu literature (now added to the article), I stumbled upon a couple of blog posts about the character [1] [2]. Of course, these aren't by themselves enough to establish it as notable, but given the context, they do strongly suggest that it might be. Uanfala (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this book from a university press Budugu "became a house-hold name for over two decades". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the discussion hasn't changed the mind of GeoffreyT2000, Daniel Kenneth or SwisterTwister. Uanfala (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though only one reliable source says indirectly that this subject is notable enough, I believe that the material given by this discussion would let it become into a respectable article that even though it would have no chance of becoming a featured article, it would be able to survive future deletion discussions. Daniel kenneth (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source for budugu here. Daniel kenneth (talk) 11:09, 1 May 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.