Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramlal Prabhuji
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramlal Prabhuji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A simple google search provides not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I think it meets multiple speedy deletion criteria but I don't think it would do me any good because some one will surely decline it for whatever reason. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Totally unsourced article, which cannot survive as such, whatever the claimed miracles. I'm thinking this may be the subject, under a variant name? AllyD (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence you are supporting delete, right? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Third extensions of debate are support a detailed rationale of why no call is being made; the 4th extension really should not even happen.
Keep this as No Consensus under the principle of WP:NOBODYCARES.Carrite (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Delete - Striking that last part, this is unsourced, unencyclopedic, and promotional in intent. It's unwikified, probably an orphan, and should have been hauled to PROD, where it would have been deleted because WP:NOBODYCARES. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2013 (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.