Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pastor Esther Bharathi

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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Esther Bharathi[edit]

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

Over-enthusiastic bio for "India's first transgender pastor". " The refs are Indian newspapers, which are no better than tabloids for materials of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:RS. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is the basis for deletion really that all Indian newspapers are unreliable? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per rhododendrites question and that sources seem fine. Adding onto issues with this deletion, DGG are you saying that Indian newspapers are reliable unless they are talking about transgender issues? I'd like to know what you mean by "material of this sort." Rab V (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG, sources are perfectly reliable. Nominator has not given a reason on why Indian newspapers should not be considered reliable. Pratyush (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably passes WP:GNG. WP:INDAFD does not give me a reason to believe that Indian newspapers are especially unreliable. Ceosad (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2017 (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.