Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. T. A. Parasuram


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

T. T. A. Parasuram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite several prods being removed, I can't even find a single source to support that this person existed. The two included make no mention of this person under any name and do not support anything that they cite. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:A7, and if not, Delete per nom. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 00:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fails A7, has a credible claim of notability. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, Speedy Delete per WP:A7, and if not, Delete per nom. —   IVORK  Discuss 01:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * --You're a new-page-patroller and ought to have a very good understanding of our CSD guidelines.This article misses A7 by a mile.See WP:CCSI ~ Winged Blades Godric 06:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And include T T A Parasuram under WP:CSD —   IVORK  Discuss 01:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  13:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The claimed political role is not an "inherently" notable one for the purposes of extending a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, but there's no evidence of enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. As for the arguments above about whether this is speedy deletable or not, note that "a claim of notability which is very clearly not verified by the article's listed sources" is a valid reason to question whether the notability claim is credible or not — given that there's disagreement about the speediability, AFD is more appropriate than speedy in this instance, but simply asserting that people who consider it speediable are wrong is just wasting everybody's time and energy to no purpose, because there's a valid difference of opinion for valid reasons as to whether the notability claim is credible or not. So let's put a lid on that digression and just stick to discussing the article on its own clear lack of merit. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 16 April 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.