Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyani Ram

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gyani Ram[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Practically the only mention I can find of a person with this name is in relation to a widow receiving a freedom fighter's pension, but there is no indication that this is the same person as recorded in our article. Sitush (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:POLITICIAN. I found this which indicates there was a Gyani Ram who was a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. I can't find anything that would verify that he was a "freedom fighter" which provides no context as to what conflict he was a freedom fighter in. Perhaps somebody versed in Indian history could help. In any case, that could be removed as unverified. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am versed in Indian history ;) "Freedom fighter" means they were campaigning for Indian independence from British imperial rule. As far as the source that you provide concerning the politician bit, well, the problem is that (a) we have no idea whether it is the same person and (b) that may well not even be his common name. Indian naming conventions vary widely and without some decent sources we are pretty much writing an article on a "John Smith" without any idea which John Smith it is. There have been many thousands of politicians-cum-freedom fighters in India but extending WP:POLITICIAN to cover a vaguely-defined person at a vaguely-defined time based on a single snippet view does not really seem to add much of encyclopedic value, especially so if that is not even the name he was most frequently been known as. Your source was published in 1962 and refers to Gyani Ram in the present tense but, again, that is pretty meaningless because there are lots of republished Indian works shown on GBooks and it could as well be a reprint of something from as far back as the Raj period. Put it another way, the article can always be recreated if some decent evidence about a specific person does turn up at some point. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, glad you turned up. YK, OrangesRyellow and sarvajna will probably not be far behind you. Please can you explain which person passed WP:POLITICIAN. Hopefully, there are some non-English sources out there that can be translated. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They might! Just like how RP & Boing might. See article to answer your question. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 09:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of a sub-national legislature, so clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased the article so that it can be kept per policy. We don't know when he was born or died, whether he was a freedom fighter etc and so all of that has been removed. It now just says that someone bearing this name was elected in 1962. I can live with this. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly acceptable per our verifiability policies. Are you withdrawing the nomination? -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to do pre-empt by doing a non-admin close then I have no problem with that. I still think that the article is a waste of time but I know that our crazy notability guidelines allow a lot of such things, based on the oft-misguided Micawberism that something will turn up. Me? I'd rather there were 3.5 million less articles and those that remained were well-written and sourced etc! It really isn't hard to do if a subject is genuinely notable. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 3 July 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.