Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruparelia


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 15:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ruparelia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Irrelevant article, no information can be backed up with sources. Has attracted vandalism during it's existence. Saxin00 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep - no valid reasons were given to delete; see WP:BEFORE and WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources that I can find after searching, although I remain open that they may exist. The problem comes when other sources list Wikipedia as authoritative, such as here, that is, is Wikipedia perpetuating untruths. Most likely this topic is better reserved for the Indian version of Wikipedia, since they would be in a much better position to check sources; at present, this topic is not listed on the Indian Wikipedia as far as I can tell.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Appears to be a vanity article with no sources, with links to specific family members' websites. Runs into GNG issues as well as, probably, BLP. As far as nomination rationale, the nom did say "no information can be backed up with sources" which literally would mean it's unverifiable (certainly a valid reason for deletion) but I think it's fair to say he/she meant there are no sources. Regardless, there's a reason to delete. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  23:21, 28 June 2014 (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.