Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kundalam Rangachariar

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalam Rangachariar[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO. Nothing in gnews, plain google search mainly reveals WP mirrors. Perhaps someone could search in Hindi (as there is no Hindi version of this article). LibStar (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a worthy person, but sources are just not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete. After a thorough search, I was unable to locate any sources. Based on several community posts, it is clear that the person was real.GeezGod (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As agreed with the above comments, the person is worthy and real, but that a complete record, like biography, doesn't exist. However, there has been numerous records of the contributions the person has made, which have been quoted in the page. The reason is mainly due to the non-digitized records in India, which prevents searching information from more than 30-40 years via a computer, and that that would require physical searches though the documents and records. If deletion would be the final decision in this case, I request to provide a maximum time of 6 months to manually search through the archives and provide references. Bajjibala (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an article in the hindu archived here. One must keep this as a stub because we must ensure that historically significant individuals are not left out because of the built in bias for having articles record what is verifiable online through numerous verifiable links to articles. Especially in parts of the world where documentation and archives are not digitized or even maintained as well. The stub tag is relevant but my opinion is that keeping the article can retain a record of this scholar and his contributions to Sanskrit.InfiNeuro (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the in-depth source that Wikipedia requires. At best it is a mention. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Appearing in lists of people, passing mentions, and being "well known" to someone, even if that person is notable, are not sufficient to show WP notability. I understand that finding sources might be difficult, but simply claiming a person is "worthy and real" is not enough. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:34, 1 March 2022 (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.