Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krant M. L. Verma


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Krant M. L. Verma

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic Criteria Wikieditindia (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There might be some Hindi-language sources available to establish notability. utcursch | talk 10:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator's rather general reasons for deletion don't exactly make discussion easier. At first sight, the article both seems to assert the notability of the subject and looks well-referenced. There are certainly problems with the article - the assertions of notability can be read as largely promotional, and most of the references, while citing probably reliable sources, are in Hindi, offline and rather unspecific (for instance, Dainik Jagran New Delhi 19 March 2004 - but what page?). These problems may be related to the fact that the article was created and has been largely edited by someone who at least comes close to being an SPA - under other circumstances I might suspect autobiography, but in this case the article subject happens to be a Wikipedia editor (User:Krantmlverma) who seems to be significantly more Wikipedia-literate (for instance, in setting up references) than the article creator. My gut feeling is that at least some (though not all) of the Hindi references will probably turn out to be substantial and reliable and that, despite the lack of (for instance) good GBooks hits, that is probably either a matter of almost all references being in Hindi or the article title being the wrong search term (note that several of the inward links to the article into the article are piped). But that's a gut feeling - not enough to vote on. PWilkinson (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)




 * Weak Keep Like PWilkinson, I am chary of voting on an article where notability depends on Hindi sources, apparently quite good. A proper judgement on this article requires either an expert on the subject or at least someone who can look up and check the old paper sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: As noted by PWilkinson, most of the sources should probably be found offline and in Hindi media. Assuming good faith the sources cited should be considered right. One web source is provided which does prove the notability and one of his books is included in Google Books. The image File:Release of Books By A.B.Vajpeyi.JPEG, although nominated for deletion due to lack of license, also does not seem fake and proves a few points mentioned in the article. Worth keep! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep:Vide Chiswick Chap. Disclaimer: I have met Krant ML Verma at WikiConference 2011. He is a Wikipedian. AshLin (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:Was asked to comment, so: Although the article needs a little cleanup (and probably a move), on first look the references seem good, and I don't see how it fails WP:BIO. I see atleast four different newspapers as references, and I think they count as " secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." And the article names seem to be about the subject/his works, which I think can be called "substantial coverage". Specifically, refs 4, 6 and 14 in this revision seem enough to pass WP:BIO.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep:Per wp:UGLY, admittedly the article even cites Wikipedia, or that the sources are poor, or in Hindi? Could someone tell me what the policy is on translating articles written from one language to another, in Wikipedia. The subject is notable, 23 Wikipedia articles cite his work as a source, my vote is that it should stay. That the subject is a Wikipedian shouldn't be held against him. I suggest that the Hindi citations should be cited verbatim and translated as: footnotes, can we have a better photograph please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:11, 13 March 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.