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.
After a couple of long and hard looks, I cannot find sufficient reliable coverage of this person to meet
WP:GNG, even taking into account
WP:INDAFD. The only sources I can find are in publications not remotely reliable. I had PRODed this, but the tag was removed by the author, who also has a name similar to the subject (possibly a relative?) which raises COI concerns as well.
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- the Surotho Pani mentioned many times in the linked "Seed Holds..." book might be notable, but unless the author is asserting that Suratha is the same as Surotho, there's no mention of this subject in that book. --
Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)18:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Issues related to transliteration might well mean that Suratha and Surotho are the same. Having not seen the book, I regret that I find it difficult to judge significance from what is essentially no more than a stub. Possibly userify, so that the author can work on it, with a view to establishing notability. If (for example) in the course of a career, he established several dozen churches, he might well be notable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Michael Scott Cuthbert,
Peterkingiron; yes, I believe that errors in transliteration means that Surotho and Suratha are the same person. However, the book is published by Lulu.com; described by Wikipedia as " is an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform." Hardly a reliable publisher, methinks. I would even have accepted a religious publisher, were they distant from the subject, but this doesn't even meet that low bar.
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
05:29, 21 December 2015 (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.
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.
After a couple of long and hard looks, I cannot find sufficient reliable coverage of this person to meet
WP:GNG, even taking into account
WP:INDAFD. The only sources I can find are in publications not remotely reliable. I had PRODed this, but the tag was removed by the author, who also has a name similar to the subject (possibly a relative?) which raises COI concerns as well.
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- the Surotho Pani mentioned many times in the linked "Seed Holds..." book might be notable, but unless the author is asserting that Suratha is the same as Surotho, there's no mention of this subject in that book. --
Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)18:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Issues related to transliteration might well mean that Suratha and Surotho are the same. Having not seen the book, I regret that I find it difficult to judge significance from what is essentially no more than a stub. Possibly userify, so that the author can work on it, with a view to establishing notability. If (for example) in the course of a career, he established several dozen churches, he might well be notable.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Michael Scott Cuthbert,
Peterkingiron; yes, I believe that errors in transliteration means that Surotho and Suratha are the same person. However, the book is published by Lulu.com; described by Wikipedia as " is an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform." Hardly a reliable publisher, methinks. I would even have accepted a religious publisher, were they distant from the subject, but this doesn't even meet that low bar.
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
05:29, 21 December 2015 (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.