User talk:Kplkumar

Welcome!
Hello, Kplkumar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Dr. Sankara Bhagavadpada, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Bgwhite (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Dr. Sankara Bhagavadpada


The article Dr. Sankara Bhagavadpada has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Sankara Bhagavadpada
Hello, Kplkumar,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Sankara Bhagavadpada should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Sankara Bhagavadpada.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Batard0 (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a few references to external sites and articles as to the veracity of my article. Can you please refer to the bottom of the page under Notes. Do let me know what I can do to improve the article further.Kplkumar (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2012
 * Hey -- I just noticed your response. I'm sorry I didn't see it earlier. The article has since been deleted, but I would recommend asking the administrator who did the deletion to move it into your userspace if you would like to work on it further with the goal of bringing it up to a point where it meets the notability requirements. Please don't take the fact that it was deleted as an affront; nobody wants to negate the hard work of contributors, but we have to make sure at the same time that everything in the encyclopedia meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG. As a first step, I would recommend reading these guidelines. Then you'll have a sense of what an article needs to meet the community's standards for inclusion. After that, I would suggest trying to find reliable, secondary sources who discuss the subject in a significant way. I'm talking about things like major newspapers, magazines, other people's books and things like that. The point is to establish that people other than the subject himself have taken notice of the subject and his work. Things like personal blogs, websites that aren't themselves notable and self-published books should be avoided as sources for this purpose. I think if you're able to find at least two examples of significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, the consensus will be to keep the article. The language of the source can be English, Hindi or anything else; as long as it's significant and reliable coverage, it's good. Best of luck with this, and let me know if I can be of any further assistance. --Batard0 (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)