Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy C


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Joy C

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously proposed for BLPProd. Has 3 references 1 of them links to a hindu.com article that has a one sentence mention of one of the purported pen names of this article subject. 1 link to english wikipedia that does not mention subject at all. 1 link to malayalam wikipedia - have no idea what it says, google translate does not support this language yet, but in any case a wikipedia article is not a valid reference. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Writer is "a popular novelist in Malayalam language", which has 38 million native speakers, most in a single state in India. How do we establish notability within that context? It appears there is a rich Malayalam literature tradition, but determining contemporary popular novelist is going to be extremely difficult. She does have an entry in this list (under Josi Vagamattam) so we know she exists. Puzha.com claims to be a major online literary magazine for Malayalam literature and a search of their site doesn't turn up much. A search of google.in with "Vagamattam" turns up very little. Based on this I propose delete as non-notable but open to change if someone finds another way to search as this is a difficult case, but I'm not even seeing a hint of notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  02:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)



comment a double relist on an article with no no votes (even the creator!)? Treat it like an endorsed prod at min? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I have no idea if the claims to notability presented in that article are valid, but I do know that if something cannot be sourced, it should be deleted. Especially a BLP. Language barriers suck, but verifiability is more important. When and if a bio of this person is successfully sourced, then it can stay. Otherwise it fails WP:BIO and it should go. § FreeRangeFrog 01:44, 22 November 2012 (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.