Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathuran Ahirwar Bhamoura

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. WP:TNT Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathuran Ahirwar Bhamoura[edit]

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

copy/paste of whatever the sole reference is Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current version of the article is copyvio, but the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of parliament. Confirmed at the Parliament of India website. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is possible that the source is public domain as a report of the Indian government, which would make this not a violation. I'll see if I can find someone who can answer that definitively. DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Govt of India works are copyrighted and not PD, so unless a rewrite occurs this should be deleted G12. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  @SpacemanSpiff: Template:PD-India seems to suggest that some government works are not copyrighted. The copyright law of 1957 says that government reports are "not an infringement", but I don't think that means they are public domain. I'm not sure how that fits in with WP policy. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a report, reports are specifically classified by law to include budgets and revenue reports, plans and allocations and specific review reports for Plan projects. —SpacemanSpiff 20:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info! DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly needs a rewrite, but the subject is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio per SpacemanSpiff. Notable subject, but the only content of value in the article is the ref to the Parliament website. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 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.