Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya Jayantsen Suriswarji


 * 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. Still a UBLP after a week. The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Acharya Jayantsen Suriswarji

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined BLPPROD, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this Acharya. Langauge and cultural familiarity issues may be blocking my attempts to find appropriate sources. joe deckertalk to me 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. This article has been around for almost five years and then was tagged as unreferenced and proposed for deletion on the same day. Is that sensible? Surely you tag an article as a warning and then start a deletion process if it doesn't improve WP:ATD. Give it a chance Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That's awfully close to WP:LONGTIME.  --joe deckertalk to me 02:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response. The point isn't that the article has been around a long time. It's that there was no time given to respond to the tagging. Actually it was nominated for deletion and THEN tagged which is surely the wrong way around Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Respectfully, I'm afraid we disagree. Quite a fraction of the community believed last year that unsourced BLPs should be deleted en masse and without discussion, while I strongly disagree with that position as well, it's still my sense that the community is not willing to extend a great deal of patience to unsourced and unsourcable biographies of living people.  I would also disagree with your suggestion that there is or was "no time given to respond to the tagging".  This AfD should run at least seven days, and my selection of AfD (rather than PROD) was specifically designed to increase the chances that sources establishing notability would be found. Moreover, I *declined* a BLPPROD on this that had run for ten days before sending this to the slower-paced AfD process. If you'd like to save this article, I recommend actually trying to demonstrate notability. And I sincerely hope you find something, I wasn't able to.  --joe deckertalk to me 14:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Tigerboy, do you have genuine reason to believe that reliable sources exist demonstrating this subject's notability? If so, then why are you not adding them to the article?  If you do not, in fact, have any reliable sources to proffer, then upon what legitimate policy grounds are you advocating keeping the article?  The article has had a chance - during the four years in which no substantive improvements were made, during the ten days of the BLPPROD in which no reliable sourcing was added.  No evidence the subject passes the GNG, and there's nothing in Wikipedia policy - quite the opposite, actually - allowing for the indefinite retention of unsourced BLPs pending, well, people not working on them.  Ravenswing  16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Our policies on biographies of living people do not allow us to keep such articles if they are unsourced. I'm open to changing my mind is some sources can be offered but at this point I can find none. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. (It's possible that there are pages out there in Hindi about this person using a variant name, if they come to light prior to closing, ping my userpage and I'll reevaluate.) Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.