Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Govindrao Talwalkar


 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Govindrao Talwalkar

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Better to use the common English spelling for searches:
 * Better to use the common English spelling for searches:

Nominate for deletion Ghits just showed mirrors of Wikipedia - I could find nothing to support notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to admin: This AFD was malformed. It was created on 6 Sep 2011 without standard AFD discussion bits and pieces, and was never listed at Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 6. I've corrected these issues, and the listing period should take into account that 6 October 2011 is the effective date of first listing. Whpq (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Lots of WP:NPOV issues compounded by the fact that most of the links don't and those that do mainly don't seem to mention the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite a challenge, this article. To help review it, I've labelled all the live links and put the dead links below ground, I mean below a line. Results: Talwalkar has written 11 books. He really was a notable journalist, stirring up controversy in his own right, as well as writing and editing a lot in India. The article is I think largely true and surely passes WP:GNG. The article fails WP:NPOV and WP:V is poorly met - but in my view is certainly capable of it. Please don't ask me to draft it from scratch! So I'm a KEEP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Postscript: I have done a quick slash-and-burn edit on the article, inserting headings, etc. It needs citations but may be a bit easier for you guys to read. I think we have a bit of a cultural issue here - it is normal in India to write in a very polite, honorific way about retired elders (rather nice, actually), but it comes across as v. flowery in the West. And insisting on proof and inline citations would just be rude! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I had the same problem as Chiswick Chap with the article itself, and also noticed that the subject is a notable author and newspaper editor, based on extensive Google book and Google scholar results, under the more common English spelling, "Govind Talwalkar". There is no doubt he is notable and passes WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - He appears to be a notable journalist/editor/author. His work/opinions appear to be important enough to be cited by others, for example .  This [a distinguished leader of Marathi journalism editorial] in The Hindu calls him "a distinguished leader of Marathi journalism".  -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment After this closes, the article should be moved to "Govind Talwalkar", which is by far the more common English spelling in reliable sources. That would also make it less likely to be nominated for deletion again, based on the reason this was nominated. I think that a move would have to be done by an admin, since it would be done over a redirect. First Light (talk) 15:37, 14 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.