- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result wasdelete.✗plicit00:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Shri Babu Ram Paliwal (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log |edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL)
Had originally nominated forWP:PROD but as a User removed the tag, now nominating for XfD. Primarily reasons for deletion areWP:N andWP:NPOV. The User who removed PROD notice opined that "ill-formatted sources are named in references" however that does not in and of itself establish either notability or neutrality. Further, none of the references mentioned are verifiable online by any third-party, which makes it even more difficult to verify the contents. One of the references is a Facebook post, while others are historical dating from the late 1950s, none of which can easily establish either the notability of the person concerned, nor the neutrality with which the article has been written. Thus, nominated for XfD. —Avenue X at Cicero (t·c) sends his regards @17:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a rapid look- Plenty of sources about him in Hindi, they confirm he was a published poet, worked for the radio, was part of various state committees, etc. If you remove the FB link and trim the page, I suppose this can be improved, as he seems notable. A lot of things offline too, I assume. -. May I suggest a Draftification so that competent and willing users can improve the page? This will need a lot of work.
- ps- the user who contested the proposed deletion was me.e.ux21:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Had a look myself and most of the sources I could spot in either language were book purchase links from Flipkart or other sellers (not sources) or regurgitations based on the Wikipedia article itself. For me, it clearly and substantially fails every criteria inWP:BASIC which says that people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. None of the conditions are fulfilled here. Furthermore, even as perWP:AUTHOR, none of the 4 guidelines prescribed have been met. So based on the above I will call it as it is - a beautiful article written by a daughter to honour her father; but the place it belongs is her own blog, not Wikipedia (WP:!). —Avenue X at Cicero (t·c) sends his regards @21:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Google search revealed little except this item on English Wikipedia. Checked the ISBNs provided (one was invalid) and nothing came up. (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)GrimRob (talk)09:33, 22 October 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
