Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S M Gothoskar

: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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

=[[S M Gothoskar]]=

:{{la|S M Gothoskar}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|S M Gothoskar}})

Notability not established. PROD removed without any attempt to resolve this issue. Sitush (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete – per nom. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 09:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE There is a clear reference given on the site from a reputed Indian Newspaper as per the norms... so why should we Delete User: Bhargo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhargo (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:May I ask, what is the URL of the page? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

::There is one source, cited twice. It is in a Indian language newspaper [http://www.loksatta.com/old/loksattav2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110594:2010-10-26-16-08-00&catid=32:2009-07-09-02-02-48&Itemid=10 here]. No translation, so WP:NOENG might kick in, but in any event a single source does not mean a lot. This person has been active for > 50 years according to the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete --- The article despite having one ref is very trivial and doesn't explain much other than his profession. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

: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.