Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tejraj Dedavat


 * 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) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tejraj Dedavat

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

I removed the prod tag from this because a prod had previously been contested. The nominator's rationale was "Article about an obscure local businessman written by a close associate of the article subject." Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't have the same telepathic powers as the prod nominator to enable me to know whether the article was written by a close associate of the article subject, but I agree that this is an obscure, unnotable local businessman. If you weed out all of the peacockery (don't you just love "whose presence was felt like a roaring lion"?) all you seem to be left with was that he ran Mumbai's number one umbrella manufacturing business. Google Books and News archive searches find nothing and a straight web search just gets Wikipedia mirrors and a blog. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the nominator.I myself was thinking of nominating this and other page Sarkar Laxmichand Hingarh for deletion for sometime.Clearly not notable.Shyamsunder23:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteFails Notability (people). Google returns 4 hits for Tejraj Sagarmalji Dedavat, 3 hits for Tejraj Sagarmal Dedavat and 56 for Tejraj Dedavat (most of which appear to be blogs and Wikipedia mirror sites).- Ravichandar My coffee shop 12:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Google is irrelevant for this sort of article. Unfortunately, I doubt that sources could be found in practice by people here. The only person likely to know sources for this is the original editor, and it looks like he has never been warned or notified or offered any help by either the person placing the prod or the afd. I did so now. Of course, he was in a practical sense notified by placing the tag on the article, since he did remove the prod, but a more personal explanation such as I just gave him might work, for the article looks like it did have a source (since it seems a copypaste from an obit, possibly capable of rewriting). If not adequately sourced, of course delete. It's hard to judge from the information here whether he'd be notable, but some of the accomplishments might conceivably have specifics, though they were not given. It's possible Mubai's umbrella business was very significant--it's the second largest city in the world with 13 million people, and umbrellas are very widely used in India DGG (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not cite specific reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. We cannot have WP:BLP articles that are mostly, if not completely, unverifiable. People have used Wikipedia to proliferate hoaxes for their own benefit before, and Wikipedia got bad press in return. AfD'd Sarkar Laxmichand Hingarh too. VG &#x260E; 02:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMPORTANT : I am not in favour of deletion of any article on merely ignorance of a subject .Anyway it finally on management to allow such data pages or not. But i have noted that Jainism or jain personalities or any jain religion related pages are not entertained by Management . And deletion of such articles will only substantiate the claim. Like For Said page deletion one should visit related historical places & tally . Because what if later one finds that it was hasty decision to delete genuine personalities pages wouldnt one be guilty of same. In India there exist many history facts remain un recorded &it has to start somewhere. Now there existed many Famous Jain Monks which you cant find on Google, but what if someone tries to specify here , how you are going to justify. So i request if pages that are not creating envy should be spared in benefit of doubt. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC).
 * DeleteI tried to look at the article in the most sympathetic fashion that I could but could not find any good reason to keep it. --Deepak D'Souza 12:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ok, Jimbo and his fellow managers (don't have the slightest idea who they are) are against a certain sect. I think this is my chance to get in to the Boss's good book. So a delete reason! Seriously, this arrticle fails the notability and verifiablity standards by some miles. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2008 (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.