Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkissore Dutt


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Rajkissore Dutt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of Notability. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG DJRSD (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject of the article concerns a major fraud perpetrated against India's largest bank. The fraud perpetrated by Rajkissore Dutt is in the same order of magnitude as the Nagarwala case, both in terms of amount and impact on the bank. Secondly, if the Nagarwala case is notable enough to merit its own article, then the Rajkissore Dutt case also deserves its own article on Wikipedia, because both involve the same bank and both are frauds of huge amounts.

Thirdly, the references cited are obviously published, reliable and secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Both The Hindu and The Times of India are major Indian newspapers in the English language.

Fourthly, the references are not just passing mentions. This reference cites a book published in 1904, which dedicates a separate chapter to the story of Rajkissore Dutt. The book is now archived on the Internet Archive. This reference cites a book published in 1881, which dedicates a separate paragraph to the case of Rajkissore Dutt and is now archived on Project Gutenberg.

Considering all the above, we cannot arrive at any outcome other than Keep.Andbridge (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as per findings by Andbridge. Plentry references in Google Books that are non-trivial . Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Andbridge. Meets notability. Citations need reformatting. I'll try to fix. Peter303x (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2021 (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.