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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Sita Ram Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J.Mundo (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep notability by claims made on page, needs verified, but that it needs improved is not a reason for deletion. What this really needs is an expert tag. --Buridan (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but sometimes it needs to be stated. This subject was born in 1907 and worked in a non-English language that doesn't use the Latin alphabet. This means that we can't expect any sources to be online or in English, and even if there are such online English sources they may use a different transliteration of the subject's name. Wouldn't it be better in such a case to give a relevent Wikiproject, such as WP:India, a few weeks to look at this before nominating it for deletion? I note that even though the article has been around for a year or two it hasn't been brought to that project's notice until Salih did so above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep numerous hits on Google books, often in association with Madan Mohan Malviya suggest that the claims in the article are true, and therefore the article needs to be expanded and referenced rather than deleted. However move page to Sitaram Chaturvedi; Acharya is just a title roughly equivalent to Professor/Scholar. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have wikified, copyedited, and added a reference and bibliography to the article. The subject indeed is a very eminent scholar of Hindi and Sanskrit language and literature. Should be an obvious keep. Abecedare (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clear and strong notability has been demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability established. Thanks to the update by Abecedare. Salih (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Arguably meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). In addition to the reasons provided above, his receipt of the honorary doctor of letters also indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2009 (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.