Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Kishor Joshi

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. sufficient consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Kishor Joshi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious clains of notability, Google search turned up almost nothing about this person that wasn't promotional (e. g. Facebook etc.). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. vanity page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy of this version was declined (other versions with various capitalizations were A7'd). Going though this discussion process ensures any re-creation can be speedy-deleted on-sight and repeated re-creations by the same editor will be considered evidence of disruptive behavior. In short, letting this go 7 days now means we won't have to revisit it ad-nausium in the future. That, and it is remotely possible that this person does meet WP:N but has managed to keep reliable, independent sources that can demontrate it off of Google's top-20 list. I did say "remote." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article originally contained a somewhat credible-appearing source but it related to a different person. Thparkth (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged it for speedy. But it was declined. Did not find any reference to prove that he is notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unacceptable and apparently unimprovable as this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - Completely acceptable and apparently improvable as this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.187.218.83 (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: As nominator, I would recommend that the closing admin look at the state of the article at the time it was nominated and at the time of closing. If there are enough newly-added reliable, independent sources to suggest more time is needed, I would recommend relisting or closing as "move to Draft:". Non the other hand, if the newly-added sources either lack independence, lack reliability, or do not support notability enough to suggest that this person might be notable, then delete it. Of course, if the newly-added sources which are reliable and independent clearly support a claim of notability even if the article text doesn't include all of the claims, then the page should be kept and cleaned up (it seems a bit npov right now). Also note that the article has been expanded and references have been added since I nominated it and since the "early" AfD participants gave their opinion. There is no telling if they (or I) would have the same opinion if they (or I) reviewed it right before you, the closing admin, began the closure process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources talk about him; they only back up his beliefs and the figure for whom he is named. Without sources, he's not all that notable. —LucasThoms 06:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the article has been so much expanded since nomination that it deserves further consideration. Those who have already !voted are invited to say whether the new material has changed theri views. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reaffirming nomination to delete article - I just did a cleanup and removed a lot of stuff that was not about the person. I also flagged some references as not backing up the claims and flagged one extraordinary claim as dubious. Because of that I added {{factual accuracy}} (diff). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter rubbish. --Michig (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.