Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thakur Dal Singh (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy deleted as a CSD G4 repost, the content being substantively identical to the version in the first AfD, and still total unreferenced. Xoloz (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thakur Dal Singh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. This was deleted in 2011 and I've no idea how it came to be recreated. I've just had to remove every single citation because the sources were no better (probably the same) as those discussed in the last AfD. As per normal for the creator, this is a family biographical article, hence the use of family documents as sources. Sitush (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * NB: the creator shows as . I've no idea why because the creator is clearly in reality (the family member). It looks to me like Fae may have somehow ignored the original deletion decision but I've no idea why they'd do that given that they participated in it. Perhaps I'm misreading something somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as repost. After the original deletion, Fae seems to have userfied this article for (no problem there). However, Pkandhal soon moved the userfied draft back into mainspace without repairing the sourcing problems that led to the original deletion. Comparing the draft as userfied (presumably the text when deleted) to later versions shows minimal, generally cosmetic differences, and all but one of the references used are primary sources that lack verifiability -- the only fact in the article sourced to a plausibly reliable source is the identity of the subject's uncle, hardly enough to establish notability. This is pretty much identical to the deleted text, negligible if any improvement, but it somehow evaded scrutiny when moved back to mainspace. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as shown. Tehsildar looks impressive as a word - but it's only a position in the revenue service. The philanthropic work, unfortunately, is probably totally unreferenceable. Peridon (talk) 22:45, 28 February 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.