Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/Rajeshirke

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. Discussion yielded no consensus; default to keep. Page moved to Raje per our English counterpart. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshirke

Rajeshirke (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

No sources of information; Insufficient evidence of the notability (as Wikipedia defines it) of this family

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Delete Non-notable family. Looks a little like a test page.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is just a copy of en:Raje. It should probably be moved to that name, remove the very first sentence, attribute it on the talk page, and this rfd should be closed. Synergy 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move I think, yes, we should move it per Synergy, add sources, make it more encyclopaedic, and a little more neutral. Classical Esther 02:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, it's not quite good, it should be deleted, and it has no information... Miss Tilney (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont see any reason for deletion. what this article need is a re-write and references.--Sinbad (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per synergy. --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOT clearly says that the Simple English Wikipedia is not a copy of the English Wikipedia (The Simple English Wikipedia ≠ the English Wikipedia in Simple English). This looks to me like an article written by a member of the Raje family. What makes this family notable as per WP:N? I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - can any of those who are suggesting that this is kept find any such sources? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was written by a member of the Raje family, it fails WP:N and WP:NPOV. —§ stay (sic)! 12:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that I did not say that it was written by a member of the family - only that it's the impression that I have. If your only reason for saying delete are my comments about that, then I would ask that you consider other factors. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close seven days after it was filed; that is on approx. Wednesday, 3 February 2010 at 7:36 pm, although it may be closed more quickly due to WP:SNOW.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.