| Revision as of 06:38, 7 June 2013 editShobhit Gosain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users790 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:34, 7 June 2013 edit undoJussychoulex (talk | contribs)318 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::You are telling us that one person, who has not commented here, has indicated that he thinks the article is acceptable. That is not a reason for keeping the article. If you believe there are good reasons for keeping it, you need to tell us what those reasons are, not merely that there is someone else who thinks there are good reasons. ] (]) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | ::You are telling us that one person, who has not commented here, has indicated that he thinks the article is acceptable. That is not a reason for keeping the article. If you believe there are good reasons for keeping it, you need to tell us what those reasons are, not merely that there is someone else who thinks there are good reasons. ] (]) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Sorry, I should have made clearer that I wrote ''keep'' rather than ''comment'' because I have read the references and agree with KoH that and lift this above being a standard bio of a mid-rank civil servant, and are enough for notability. ] (]) 14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | :::Sorry, I should have made clearer that I wrote ''keep'' rather than ''comment'' because I have read the references and agree with KoH that and lift this above being a standard bio of a mid-rank civil servant, and are enough for notability. ] (]) 14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::In last discussion, all the people strongly recommend to delete the page. Then how a single person, who did not take part in the discussion, can restore the page. What was the basis of restoration? I still did not find any notability of this person. He is just a normal civil servant.] (]) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:34, 7 June 2013
Parikipandla Narahari
AfDs for this article:- Parikipandla Narahari (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)
Earlier the same article was deleted after a long discussion. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P._Narahari. The article is again created with full name. A broad discussion is required so that the acceptance/deletion of the page can be determined . Jussychoulex (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 5. Snotbot t • c » 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. No article is not made again with another name. The article was restored again by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ and it was redirected from P. Narahari to Parikipandla Narahari. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The deleting admin at the previous AfD, King of Hearts (talk), agreed to restore the article given additional sources, see User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/05#deleted page P. Narahari. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are telling us that one person, who has not commented here, has indicated that he thinks the article is acceptable. That is not a reason for keeping the article. If you believe there are good reasons for keeping it, you need to tell us what those reasons are, not merely that there is someone else who thinks there are good reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have made clearer that I wrote keep rather than comment because I have read the references and agree with KoH that this and this lift this above being a standard bio of a mid-rank civil servant, and are enough for notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- In last discussion, all the people strongly recommend to delete the page. Then how a single person, who did not take part in the discussion, can restore the page. What was the basis of restoration? I still did not find any notability of this person. He is just a normal civil servant.Jussychoulex (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have made clearer that I wrote keep rather than comment because I have read the references and agree with KoH that this and this lift this above being a standard bio of a mid-rank civil servant, and are enough for notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are telling us that one person, who has not commented here, has indicated that he thinks the article is acceptable. That is not a reason for keeping the article. If you believe there are good reasons for keeping it, you need to tell us what those reasons are, not merely that there is someone else who thinks there are good reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)