Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesho Naik

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kesho Naik

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to be an hoax. Fictional character from the named book in the article. Am unable to find any other source that mentions it in the slightest. Fermiboson (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. Fermiboson (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a minor rework into an article about the book, The Exploits of the Kesho Naik is a good option. —siro χ o 04:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be, if the character is notable. The first book the article cites actually mentions the character, and on the exact correct page, as a fictional character. It’s not a significant mention like you’d need for notability, but it supports what the article says if you know it’s fictional. (This is according to google books preview) Mrfoogles (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The snippet is: “ In 1912, for example, Sir Edmund C. Cox published The Exploits of Kesho Nark, Dacoit, which describes the exploits of a fictional Indian bandit who behaves in a Robin-Hood-like fashion: 'what Kesho robbed from the rich he distributed ... to the poor'. In this case the outlaw's activities are overtly anti-imperial.” It uses it as a quick example, basically. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sources it cites say it is fictional (maybe accidental, not a hoax?) but I don’t know if the character is notable or not. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be from a real book, so it would have to be a really indepth hoax to also fake an entire old book. Still, does not appear to pass GNG. If the book itself is notable, a new article on that would be a better idea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the history, the first version of the article presented the character as a real person. That part has since been corrected, though of course all the peacock wording has not. Fermiboson (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it is a hoax, but it fails WP:GNG. If we had an article about the book or its author, could redirect there, but right now I don't see a target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely any coverage in independent sources [1] Ratnahastin (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (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.