Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nageswara Rao Panditharadhyula

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nageswara Rao Panditharadhyula[edit]

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

No verifiable information on this person. Fails WP:BASIC. Most references point to 404 status pages or are incomprehensible. —Waldhorn (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give Telugu editors time to add Telugu sources - Panditaradhyula Nageswararao listed as one of 7 most important journalists on that paper probably means there are sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepThe person is definitely notable but the article is ........(badly written),that needs improvement.On the question of notability he i definitely notable Uncletomwood (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anybody know the other possible transliterations from Telugu? Crtew (talk) 00:58, 3 April 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, J04n(talk page) 11:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As someone who only works in the area of journalism, this decision is one that I find particularly difficult to judge. The nominator makes a good point, but I would edit the phrase "No verifiable information" to read "Hard to find verifiable information". The problem is whoever created this page or added to it got the information from some source(s) but didn't leave a trail for us. The one cite that is included in the article and the material in the article (although unsourced) would tend to suggest he is notable. In addition, the fact that he is a Telugu journalist makes the decision particularly important for the project as coverage in this area is lacking. He would also be of interest in India History for the fact that his career spans British Colonial rule and Independence. Moreover, there are search problems in this case: Is the transliterated name correct or are there better forms of his name? (I don't know the options.) He was also writing in an era, in a part of the world, and in a language that makes a productive Google search very difficult. When you can bring up a hit, such as in Google Books, you can't get a preview (e.g., Press in India). Because of the order of name parts it's best NOT to use an automated form of search available in places like Wikipedia or quotations. This would be a great project for Telugu editors or foreign-language research librarians. I've added on his talk page my weak attempts to do what someone with more skills, a better database, and access to the paper copies of the monographs/serials could do better. Because of the difficulties in this case, the normal time frame of the AfD process is not realistic for overcoming the obstacles in terms of talents, materials and attention that is needed to save/improve it. It would be a shame if this article could be salvaged yet was deleted. The reason I'm voting "Keep" with all of the qualifications above is the length of his career, his important positions on those newspapers and his suggested place in Telugu journalism, as well as on the basis of the limited sources we have at this time.Crtew (talk) 15:11, 4 April 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.