Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N K Sajeev

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N K Sajeev

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

Was nominated for CSD:A7 as non-notable, but whilst I'm not convinced it's good enough, it does at least make a claim to notability so I am moving it across to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was deleted on or after 8th August 2016 as a speedy deletion after the author had removed a PROD without explanation or improvement. The article was then re-created but the subject still demonstrates no notability. The references show that he exists but almost all are peripheral mentions. "The Hindu" reference is the closest to establishing notability although this appears to cite a Facebook page as its source. Nothing here in any depth. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google book results for ActLab return the digital project at U of Texas -- can't see any for this studio. The couple of The Hindu articles give no indication of notability and look like standard promoting the institution pieces, which isn't an indication of notability. • DP • ^{huh?} 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough verifiable sources to claim notability. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:21, 10 September 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.