Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maithili Karna Kayasthak Panjik Sarvekshan


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Maithili Karna Kayasthak Panjik Sarvekshan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'm here following the deletion of Binod Bihari Verma, the author of this book. I initially proposed it for Wp:PROD; however, user:Kvng contested, highlighting issues with sourcing. I found no substantial indication to support its inclusion. –Owais Al Qarni (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. –Owais Al Qarni (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - poor sourcing, but as a book in one of the little-known and endangered languages of India, this has a prima facie case for notability. Llajwa (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * No consensus to delete - Original WP:PROD rationale was This article has left the notability tag unaddressed since 2015 and has not attended to the "More citations needed" tag since 2010. Furthermore, it lacks any citations from reliable secondary sources. which does not present a vaild WP:DEL-REASON or indication of WP:BEFORE. The nom's argument here is not improved. This is far from my area of expertise but I do get some GBooks hits so there is a potential case for notability. ~Kvng (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2024 (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.