Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Pandya

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Pandya[edit]

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

This person is not notable.There are no references found about him.He's only credited for taking the part in Indian freedom Movement.As this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dinkar_Pandya Another user promised to add detail to the article, but since then no information was added. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Check out Google Books and you will find references. He was among those closest to Mohandas K. Gandhi during the Salt Satyagraha, which was a key historical moment in the campaign for Indian independence. To say he's only credited with this does not diminish the notability of these events and his role. I agree that the article is now weak, but the solution is to improve it, not to delete it. This is about the notability of the subject, not about the failure of an editor to follow through. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to find more research Tinkerb5 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cullen328's arguments are very well-taken by this editor, but a review of Google Books turns up nothing that suggests notability. I see a few brief mentions, and no significant coverage. Happy to change my vote if someone else has better luck. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:30, 30 November 2010 (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.