Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakshmi Narayana


 * 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Lakshmi Narayana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not provide enough good quality references. Most of the edits are done by editors who seems to have a WP:CoI regarding the subject matter. Harishrawat11 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 2.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  09:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It would help if the nominator could expand on the reasons why the references are not of good quality, because, on the face of it, there seem to be many reliable sources among them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

there are good sources among them.the person is not notable and the page is poorly writtem.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - surely being the joint director of the main criminal investigation organization in India is enough? The article is a total mess though. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment He is not the main JD but one among the 11..(Harishrawat11 (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC))
 * I never said anything about him being the main JD, but the JD of the main criminal investigation organization. Even if he's one of 11, holding such a position should make him notable, surely? (I also fixed your formatting mess, by the way.) Lukeno94 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  00:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, although this article could do with some improvements, I believe the current sources are sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:45, 29 November 2012 (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.