Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puroshottam Choudhary

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 "delete" arguments are not as strong as the "keep" arguments. Just because the book might not be notable doesn't mean it's not reliable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puroshottam Choudhary[edit]

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

I have tried hard and have not been able to find reliable sources that back the notability asserted within the article. A previous prod of a similarly named article that covered more or less similar contents had resulted in a delete in January 2010. Requst AfD delete. Thanks and regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have an entire book written about him in English: Joseph, Ravela (2004), Bhakti theology of Purushottam Chowdhari, Christian Literature Society, OCLC 65517210. Reasonable expectation of further non-English and/or offline sources. Scant information online, but it confirms the basic outline of the article: he was Telugu and wrote hymns. I added what I could find to the article. Typical for a long-dead guy from a non-Roman-alphabet country, there's multiple transcriptions to look out for: Purushottam/Puroshottam, Chowdhury/Chaudhary/etc, in both orders. Died in 1880, so no BLP/self-promotion concerns. cab (call) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Delete Ravela's book is found in only 28 libraries. No coverage in mainline publications. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to discount the book found by CaliforniaAliBaba. We are discussing the notability of the subject, not of the book, so the number of libraries holding the book is irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2010 (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.