Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. S. Vishweshwara Dikshith


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

T. S. Vishweshwara Dikshith

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Google pulls up less than 40 hits, none of which actually include the last two names together. Ergo, whatever this person has done, there appears to be no coverage of it anywhere in any form. Tyrenon (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Suggestion to nom: Be patient, the article is a historical stub, created less than an hour before the AfD nomination. It's about someone who lived in India pre-Independence, unlikely to have much English language references, and any references that are available will be in the form of books in the local language - Kannada. Mark the articles for references, or for an expert to look at it. An AfD should be the last resort, read WP:Before. Participate in other AfD nominations by voting, and reduce your focus on creating new ones until you get well acquainted and comfortable with the process. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. Look, I'd agree if there were a snippet somewhere out there, but when all I'm getting is a bunch of links to electoral rolls and a link to the article, there's a real notability issue.  Yes, one could expect most info to be in the native language, but I would also expect at least one English-based source.  Otherwise, I'd have to offer a strenuous objection to notability, not to mention verifiability for English-speaking users.Tyrenon (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD is not a matter of voting - the !votes are simply to tag one's point of view on the matter. As to references - can some be cited in Kannada? Apart from which, someone has got the information from somewhere to put it here. I would like to see at least some reference, and a little more info such as dates. There can be transliteration problems with some languages, so there may be mentions under variant spellings. The poet's last name is not uncommon (and occurs in different spellings), but I cannot see a great possibility of variance with 'Vishweshwara'. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested participating the process to get familiar with it, before posting so many nominations. As far as this article goes, there's a claim that the subject was 'Asthana Vidhwan', this is a pretty hefty title, probably given to about 5-10 people during the reign of a king, and if true, that is a good indicator of notability (in addition to why that title was conferred). So my entire point is, if there are some such claims, why not tag the article for references and notability, than put it up for AfD within 45 minutes of creation? As far as the multiple spellings, V and W can be used interchangably except as the first letter, the H may or may not be used after each s, and there could also be a 'ya' at the end to make it Visveshwaraya. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There could be issues here. I participated in some AfDs recently where they were nominated by someone with a sudden and possibly overweening interest in deletion. When it was suggested by someone (not me) that they might be a sock or an alternative account, they 'silently vanished away'. I am not in favour of unnecessary deletion - I'd rather see an article survive in a usable form, hence my comment about the info here coming from somewhere so there must be some reference possible. Peridon (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the thing: If this article still has no sources towards the end of a week up here, then I'm firmly in favor of killing it. If sources can be found (and I do insist on one being in English, simply so the vast majority of the readerbase here can read it), then it can stay.  But as it stands, the possibility of a hoax hangs over this article due to the lack of sources.  If all we have is a spelling issue, that's nothing, but with that said...I do want to see before I'll believe.Tyrenon (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Can't find any resources at all on the subject of the article and the editor who created the article provided none. Without any resources at all, it is neither notable or verifiable.  It doesn't feel like a hoax but for all we can tell, it could be one, we just can't say. It's already being mirrored, this sort of thing is harmful to the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I tried asking the author for references including any offline ones, no response; nothing at all on the Internet with many spelling variations. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried with different spelling of the subject but couldn't find even a single source. Salih  ( talk ) 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The author put a comment up on the talk page attached to the deletion debate here commenting that "It is sad that you have marked this for deletion and if that is done, this information will be lost forever." This leads me to very strongly suspect a hoax, as the underlying implication is that there are no other sources concerning this person whatsoever.Tyrenon (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to think this is a hoax, because the level of detail in it is too much for a hoax. It could very well be a POV push though, but eitherways, it's time for it to go. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2009 (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.