Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhukar (author)

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; the suggestion that sources may exist in another language without providing any, and the use of ghits alone as evidence of notability were unconvincing. The article lacks sources to verify assertions of notability, and so the nominator's arguments are quite convincing. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madhukar (author)

Non notable and no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author writes in German and there are sources available in Google books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If the author writes in German, is the author notable as an author in the German language, or a niche author in a particular field? Are there any claims to this person being notabile, and if so, are there any reliable sources to back up these claims? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable third party references to attest to notability in the article as it currently stands. RayAYang (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, we mark it as needing sources. AfDs are for not salvageable articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me -- it is not merely that I believe the article flawed for lack of good sources, although I do. I do not, on the basis of available information, believe the subject of the article to be notable. Of course, significant coverage in reliable sources would change my mind on this. RayAYang (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this person is notable as an author in the German language then this should be established by reliable sources. To date there is no evidence to back up this claim. Such statements, with no sources provided, do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for Verification. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will also include this discussion in the Authors deletion sorting in an attempt to gain further comments per the relevance of this subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a brief look at his Ghits reveals lots of possible sources. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I also saw Google hits for this article. It was not for a lack of Google hits that I nominated this article. It was because the individual lacks notability. Google hits does prove he exist, though claims to notability, and reliable sources to back up these claims, are still needed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2008 (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.