Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pius Thekemury


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pius Thekemury

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable academic. Contested PROD, but clearly fails WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I lean towards delete, but the basic question comes down to who/what is this soceity and how notable is it? I am not familiar with it, but I'm not in India.  Most of the sources I can find for it are via links to various members who are having wikipedia articles created.  I think the question for the person who is creating all of these articles is to show that the soceity is notable.  If they can then these people MIGHT be worth keeping.  But if it can't... DELETE.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Society for Biblical Studies in India. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand it myself: the author has created all these articles on ordinary (non-notable) professors of theology when there are highly influential Indian theologians that don't have articles at all. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF -- one GS citation, just a handful of mentions in GB, no notable positions. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.