Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baikuntha Express


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Baikuntha Express

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I couldn't see a speedy rationale, there are no sources provided, article fails WP:GNG. I did a quick google search and saw nothing to suggest in-depth reviews have been done either. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources, no links, not notable, nothing. AdoTang (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess my first question is: why was this nominated nine minutes after creation, and how do we know the author was not going to develop this article further, absent this BITEY nomination? Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply I don't know why you felt this was bitey, but when I did a google search I saw nothing substantial towards GNG! 9 hours, 9 months, 9 years. I probably still nominate if this was still in this condition. Nothing has improved in the 24 hours since I sent it to AfD. Normally an article gets improved pretty quickly from my experience when sent to AfD. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For one, this is one of the specific examples of bitey behaviour listed in that guideline page. It is a well-established norm to leave new creations alone a while to give author a chance, unless it meets one of the problematic CSD criteria or the author has clearly stopped working on it. The AFD notice on their talk page was reverted with the edit summary: "Its not a faked personality", so, given their history, I doubt we can safely assume that they know they can save the article by improving it.Anyway, what the author did manage to include suggests the articles meets WP:BOOKCRIT#2. I don't think you acquired the list of Madan Puraskar winners to verify whether this book won in the year 2042 BS. That would be one of the BEFORE tests to make sure it fails BOOKCRIT. Obviously, I'll have to look, but this book is most likely notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify (which is what I think should have been done in the first place, rather than AfD) to allow the creating editor to add content and, more importantly, references — which, to be fair, they should have done before publishing, but hey ho. I did a quick search and couldn't actually find any useful sources, but it could be that they exist in Nepalese, and/or off-line. If this really has one the most prestigious annual literary award in the country, then someone must have written about it, surely? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply I would have moved it to draft if I saw good enough sources in a google search, but didn't, hence why we are here! Govvy (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- Plenty of sources are available in Nepali language. I have added few. My search revelled the author is more notable than the book. Given the book was published 30 years back, the media coverage in the internet is small. There is academic discourse on the book itself, thus it definitely passes WP:GNG nirmal (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * -I am wondering why the nominator is so insistent to delete, instead of improving. Haha.. nirmal (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as having won a major literary award. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with some reliable coverage, and I’m going to WP:AGF that more sources are available. Deserves to be improved if it can. Archrogue (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Winner of main literary award of Nepal, meets NBOOK c.2 Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was considering closing this with a "keep" outcome but I think it would be a WP:BADNAC#2 (controversial close), so I investigated the topic instead and convinced myself that winning the Madan Puraskar is sufficient for WP:NBOOK#2. Notice that no-one has advocated for deletion since the addition of references and since the first argument made for NBOOK#2 being met. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand the references at all, I still struggle to see notability. I didn't get the year for the prize and thought that was hoax at first because of the year, but now I understand there is a different calendar for Nepal. I looked at Madan Puraskar also and see notability problems there also for the prize, not one of the years is sourced, I was also thrown off by it all hence the nom. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is a lack of Nepali editors and people who understand the relevant languages. Five other language versions of the prize article is an indicator that it is significant. The issue appears not to be notability, but current sourcing. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:12, 8 April 2021 (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.