Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gujadhur


 * 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. Tone 22:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Gujadhur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

nn vanity piece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that a genuinely good and properly referenced article could be written about this family, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody's willing to put in enough work to make the article good and properly referenced — but this, as written, is semi-advertorialized and poorly referenced fluff. Two of its three footnotes are primary sources that do not assist notability at all, and the third is a book which glancingly namechecks the family's existence in a quote from a person who married into it — so even the one acceptable reliable source is still not substantive or independent enough to singlehandedly WP:GNG this topic all by itself as the only non-garbage source in play. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2018 (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.