Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangadhara Vajapeyi

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 keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gangadhara Vajapeyi

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

Unsourced. Tagged as confusing and unreferenced since April 2007 Mdann52 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:27, 30 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject seems likely to be a historically notable person, so I'm not inclined toward deletion. I think the difficulty is in finding English sources. Perhaps an expert on the subject can help rescue the article. - Mr X 04:06, 6 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as mentioned by UserMrX, I did a google book search [1] and found couple of books mentioning his, which I have already added to the article ref list. However, article needs to be wikified by some expert, till then it can be tagged for needed improvement but certainly not a delete candidate.Jethwarp (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - did major clean up and fixing of red links, copy edits, etc.Jethwarp (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - after Jethwarp's sterling work, I think we could still do with more and better sources, but that can be left for future improvement - the ones provided look adequate for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 12:45, 18 February 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.