Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan Narayan


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Rajan Narayan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any article clarifying the existence of this person. Fails WP:N. JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can find some references to his name when searching google for "Goan Observer", including what appears to be an article about Rajan, but said article is on a website riddled with malware (according to google) and I won't click the link to check it... which suggests lack of notability. That said, the subject is about an Indian newspaper, and regardless of the fact that it is an English language newspaper, it may be possible that there are sources establishing notability that are harder for us to find using our typical language methods.  I won't place a !vote at this time, as although I would currently lean towards deletion, I believe that fighting systemic bias on Wikipedia is an important and noble goal.  If someone could determine the notability status of the Goan Observer, and determine the importance of O Heraldo, then criteria 3 of WP:JOURNALIST may allow this article's inclusion.  Withholding my !vote to give other wikipedians the chance to determine this, keeping systemic bias in mind. Fieari (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as I examined it and found nothing minimally actually convincing of any independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regardless this as all shown that there's still no actual convincing signs of his own article, regardless of any apparent systematic bias; there's no inherited notability from any of his occupations. SwisterTwister   talk  20:33, 16 July 2016 (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.