Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallur Eman Nair


 * 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   keep.  Wifione  Message 13:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pallur Eman Nair

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Horrible writing. Doesn't even make much sense. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google Books found results so it's not a hoax but it needs a complete rewrite from users familiar with the subject. Unfortunately, considering Pallur Eman is Indian, additional sources may not be English and I have notified the noticeboard for India-related topics. SwisterTwister   talk  06:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with SwisterTwister. There is a real systemic issue with this one. There are likely to be plenty of Malayalam sources but, alas, we do not have a lot of contributors who are competent in that language. The problems of transliterating his name also impact on searching- experience tells me there are far more variants than those currently listed. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Does appear to have been a relatively notable figure in his time and place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been greatly improved since nomination - it could still do with more sources (particularly when one of the two most depended on is over 100 years old), but sources even for fairly important Indian people more than a few decades back seem to have a tendency to be offline and/or not particularly recent. But what is now there is enough for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per PWilkinson, article is greatly improved since nomination. Nominator's reason for nomination is Non-notable. Horrible writing. Doesn't even make much sense - of these reasons, non-notable and Does't make much sense issues are attended; the issue of horribel writing is to be reviewed, perhaps? -Rayabhari (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree, the article has been significantly improved since this nomination started. I'm inclined to close this AfD but, if other users want to comment, feel free. SwisterTwister   talk  20:51, 25 October 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.