Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaudhary Ravindra Singh

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhary Ravindra Singh

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

I cannot find any independent reliable sources concerning this person. It is impossible to confirm notability in the absence of any such sources. Not eligible for BLPPROD, and PROD was contested. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my deprod, I had suggested this could possibly be merged or redirected to Lachhera. Did you consider that option? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs)

Cannot find even one source that he exists, let alone notable. Why would Wikipedia acknowledge a non-notable person, even with a redirect? WWGB (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't verify, then I agree, a redirect is probably inappropriate. But, there is no notability requirement for redirects. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources available to even confirm that the person existed, let alone a claim of notability. If any sources in Indian languages are found, I would be glad to reconsider. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a redirect here as it basically fails WP:V --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In this case, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. WP:V is a fundamental policy, and while redirects are cheap, they aren't necessary when there will be no content at the target. MSJapan (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2016 (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.