Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Ten cites in Google Scholar, and the only coverage I can find of him online is in the local news blogs e-pao.net, KanglaOnline.com, and manipur.org, mostly articles written by him, and none of which appear to be WP:RS.

See also Articles for deletion/Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Another discussion has been started at Articles for deletion/Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre at around the same time. noq (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not pass GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete,there are less article about him but his works are indeed use for research purpose and even helped in revival of Meetei Mayek script.[] Luwanglinux (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This article, and the guy it's about, clearly fails the generally notable guidelines and the ones for authors. There's zero evidence his work as a whole has had any major impact on anything that would qualify him to be notability, or that his work has had enough reviews/articles about them/attention/citations/take your pick either. Maybe he would qualify for notability under the guidelines for academics. Although, I'm not really sure and don't think so, but I'd be willing to change my vote if it turns out he does. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of secondary sources (i.e. sources not actually written by him) Spiderone  15:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Kindly review if this is secondary source or not

Luwanglinux (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks to be a reliable secondary source (book review). Are there any others? Spiderone  17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Spiderone  yes this is also a secondary source
 * @ Spiderone this one is from a book writen by other writer thats all I get so far I rest my apeal here


 * Those are passing mentions I'm afraid. No WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. Spiderone  23:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Hardly meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Gotitbro (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2020 (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.