Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gollapalli Jayanna


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 15:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Gollapalli Jayanna

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough references to support. Vin09 (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Able to find the subject substantially covered in a single reliable source (cited), which according to the basic criteria for WP:GNG, does not suffice for notability all by itself. (Note: I added WP:1R). Further investigation revealed other secondary sources, but their coverage of the subject is indeed trivial. Specifically, only mentioned by name on a reliable source  (not cited), and further trivial coverage on sources that are bound to a geographic locality and are less reliable: a document from the educational institution he attended  (not cited), and an event publication  (not cited). Now for the additional criteria, I do not believe that for a WP:BLP, the subject satisfies WP:ARTIST based on the current body of evidence. Unless someone finds other sources in the time frame of this AfD, my assessment is a Delete. ←  scribble &#183; ink   chat\contrib 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Little notability.   Mr RD     16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.