Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadhu sivaraman (2nd nomination)

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. Note that the present version is in fact substantially similar to the previously deleted version, though the English is improved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu sivaraman

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

Only one reference, and I am struggling to find anything else other than wikiclones. No indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google Translate of the given reference indicates that it is local paper coverage of a school visit, not an evaluative discussion of the subject. While normal searches are not turning up anything, I would be wary that there could be sustainable sources in non-Latin language sets, were it not that the article itself seems lacking in claim of notability and there is an AfD decision to delete a previous version just over a month before this version was created. If someone is able to check whether this article is substantially identical to its predecessor, this could be a CSD G4; it certainly isn't demonstrably addressing previous notability concerns. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Voluminous mass of ESL OR puffery that we couldn't keep even if the subject was notable. Pax 05:11, 8 May 2015 (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.