Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mata Nihal Kaur

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. The consensus is that the subject is notable enough for an article, but that the article needs to be tidied up to meet the standards expected in Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Nihal Kaur[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)

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this article, and the article on subject's husband Baba Gurditta are not GNG compatible, but I guess these are from the central figures of the Sikh religion. I don't know if we have any subjective guidelines on this, but I guess their status in the Sikh religion is enough to grant them notability. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, The Aafī! You make a very valid point indeed; and I sort of thought in same direction. But for her in particular (with all due respect) - since notability can not be inherited - simply being wife/mother of notable figures should not deem an article on her. Interesting to know what others think! Palmsandbeaches (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palmsandbeaches, I do know that notability is not inherited but I did no where argue that this subject is notable because her son or husband is notable. Did I? No. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a central figure in Sikh religion. You got a wikipage on Rachel a favourite wife of Jacob. Deleting this page could add to WP:WORLDVIEW. Any references would be in Gurmukhi, unlikely to be on the internet. HOWEVER the article needs to be rewritten. It is a copypaste of some webpages found on on various websites. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, the subject is likely notable. Though the lack of citations and difficulty in finding them for people who are not well informed on the Sikh religion makes it difficult to establish that. So, moving it to draft seems like the appropriate thing to do where it can be improved without it possibly violating guidelines while on the mainspace. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:48, 27 November 2020 (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.