Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mate Mahadevi

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate Mahadevi

Notability not established even with the one 'ref' to google books. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book which has no apparent relation to her is summarized as "Leading women scholars address their own traditions as they explore seven world religions in this unprecedented feminist treatment." Together with the fact she is a well-known speaker/lecturer, I believe notability has been established despite the fact just one source is given. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a text dump which looks suspiciously like a copy-paste job together with personal information. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could add some more refs to google books, there doesn't seem to be any shortage. Juzhong (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't think any of her books are notable and I don't think she's notable. But if someone can come up with references I'm willing to reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She appears to be notable within her circle as demonstrated by the coverage she recieves. Keep ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think she's notable. Juzhong (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search [1] unearths plenty more references. This search was only one click away from the reference already provided, so I'm a bit surprised that I'm the first one to point that out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2008 (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.