Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adhyaksha HoigeBazar Koragappa

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 deleted as A10. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyaksha HoigeBazar Koragappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches for this person in Gbooks and search engines, even if you exclude the middle name, are coming up with little more than Wikipedia mirrors from the previously deleted article. My concern is that this person never existed or that, if he did exist, he wasn't as well known or as notable as this unsourced article claims. Spiderone 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the subject is mentioned in Mangalore tiles and Gokarnanatheshwara Temple but none of it is referenced and seems to have been added by SPAs Spiderone 11:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is the subject mentioned in Gokarnanatheshwara Temple, the text seems to have been copied from there. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it qualify for WP:A10 DoubleGrazing or any other speedy delete criterion? Spiderone 23:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spiderone: Flattered that you should ask me, as if I knew any of this. :) But FWIW, yes, I think it would qualify for A10: from what I can work out, only the 2nd sentence of the 1st para is new content, the rest comes from the temple article; I don't think that single sentence qualifies as "expand upon, detail or improve". Whether the powers that be would take the same view, I don't know. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've requested a speedy delete. Even if declined, this AfD can still run its course. I'm getting more and more convinced that this is a hoax anyway. Spiderone 11:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searches return nothing useful, so the single offline source cited, which may or may not support something in this article, is all we have to go with. Therefore I'd say this fails basic WP:V verifiability, before we even get to the question of notability etc. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a religious text or something. The reference does not help verify anything in here at all, and the page would need many more references than this. What even is this. WP:V, but also even if everything said were true I'm not sure this could meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2021 (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.