Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Nayak


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hari Nayak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded because apparently meaningless peacock words like "award winning" are a testament to notabilty. No sourcing found, no notability asserted Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 06:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 06:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 06:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You nominated it for A7 speedy, not prod. The article credibly indicates the importance of the subject, so it isn't eligible for CSD. If you are going so fast that you mistake PROD and CSD, maybe you should slow down. Υπογράφω (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete lack of reliable sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Could not find any reliable sources which can establish notability.  The LA Times reference is just a passing mention Hagennos (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Some of the references do not link to where they are programmed to. A cursory check of those wbsite's titles as shown in the references did not turn up newer URL's. Also, the use of the subject's own material in the form of an About Us page is not a proper reference, as the information is ultimately provided by the subject himself.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:11, 29 January 2018 (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.