Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Neelakantan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravi Neelakantan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, little media coverage - does not warrant an encyclopedia entry. 122.177.60.129 (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to be little more than a big man on campus. Can't meet the WP:GNG unless there are reliable independent sources about him. Vcessayist (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Being the ambassador of India to Vietnam would suggest notability and I have found sources to confirm this. Although not the best, Google Books provided one result here and Google News provided this news article also mentioning his position as ambassador. Google News also provided additional results here, here, here and a Vietnamese article here and the results continue at the second page. These sources suggest that this is certainly not a hoax and I will add these shortly. The article will have to be trimmed to a stub and I plan to do so shortly. SwisterTwister talk 02:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Relisting to allow sources identified by SwisterTwister to be evaluated
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I think there are just enough sources to warrant an article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:27, 27 October 2012 (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.