Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Hari

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 Delete, notability not established. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Hari

Sri Hari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not Notable. Ism schism (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not a notable article. Ism schism (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Two albums released by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT), which is "the world's largest publisher of books concerning Krishna and the philosophy, religion, and culture of the Vedic tradition of India." and therefore (I would think) counts as a major label in the context of India. --Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment if the claim of having sold 250,000 copies is true, I'd say that would surely pass the spirit of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. However, that claim is presently unsourced. Not going to vote either way yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment If this could be proved, my vote would change as well. Ism schism (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: if the claims in the article were referenced, notability would be established. Until they are, we can either delete the article pending citation of references, or just slap it with {{unreferenced}}. dab (𒁳) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: My thoughts are that even if sources are found, the information should be merged with the Robert Campagnola article. I don't think that the subject matter is notable enough to warrant it's own seperate article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Notablity is debatable, at best, and independent reliable sources are still missing completely. Ism schism (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable article. verifiable links are missing. autobio & unsourced. misnamed as well without disambiguation MBest-son (talk)

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.