Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narayan Sai (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Sai

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

Since there was no consensus last time, nominating again. Most references refer to him to "Asaram's son". His father is famous, his notability is questionable. IMO WP:GNG is not satisfied. '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail' is violated. News reports (which feature on 7th or 8th pages on newspapers) covering controversy about Asaram's son, is really not significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS. Except this father's cult websites, its biography or works are not covered anywhere Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated 6 weeks ago. And 3 months before that. Can we give it a rest, please? There will be no difference after 6 weeks. -- GreenC 06:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the record, as a few weeks ago. -- GreenC 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows extensive coverage in many reliable sources in India. Coverage of notable offspring of notable people will often mention their parents. But when the sources go on to give significant coverage to the offspring, that makes those people independently notable. That's the case here. Also, sources on page 7 or 8 are perfectly fine for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS doesn't establish Wikipedia content.Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:STICK in regards to recent discussion, quote: "If the debate died a natural death – let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cares anymore. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it." Roberticus (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bands and musicians? Hehehe.... I will let it stay. Maybe people will find him notable as singer of bhajans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AfD being closed No consensus is not an excuse to AfD it again two weeks later. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to father. he is no more independently notable now than he was then. WP:BLPCRIME / WP:BLP1E. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per TRPoD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Asaram Bapu - my views are same as at were at time of previous nomination. Jethwarp (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added 2 more sources to the article which in their title refer to him solely & directly, and indicate that his issues continue to elicit independent & reliable coverage on their own merits: Narayan Sai confessed to rape: Cops Bribe conspiracy: Narayan Sai subjected to voice spectrography test Though his father is consistently mentioned within the articles, most of titles listed here mention only the son, which to me evidences an independent notability in his own right. Roberticus (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge should be an effective compromise. Wouldn't support deleting as he seems to be notable in a multitude of sources. Though that ofcourse doesn't mean he automatically gets his own page. Or maybe his political party page could be the target article.Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2014 (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.