Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramdasa

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 keep. IAR. Obvious bad faith nomination. Issues with article can be solved editorially. Star Mississippi 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdasa

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable individual. Claims made in the article are not supported by the single source, with nothing else found about this person. Article has been orphaned for five years. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There’s quite a bit about him, mostly under the spellings “Ramdas” or “Ramadasa”. I found several refs in what look like reliable works of scholarship, as well as others that look like more dubious Hindu nationalist POV-pushing. See 1 2 and 3 - there are many others. Mccapra (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also now de orphaned. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: For someone as ready as Lugnuts to howl WP:BEFORE! at the drop of a byte, he doesn't seem to have exerted himself much on this pointy AfD ... and this really isn't a good look for someone who's Wikipedia's champion for creating SIGCOV-less sub-stubs, to the point that he was recently community banned from stub creation for six months. Obvious sources are obvious. I'm comfortable with calling this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even if this article is kept, it is undeniable it is really bad right now and that it does not reflect the subject's notability (if it has enough one). Expansion here is required. Super Ψ Dro 15:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the reason I nominated it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated it for deletion because it needs expansion????? Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The bit about "does not reflect the subject's notability". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. AfDs aren't cleanup! Ravenswing 12:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 22 January 2022 (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.