Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Pathiparambil


 * 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. X clamation point  03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Pathiparambil

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

(PROD removed without explanation by IP of course) > I don't think that this person is particularly notable. The only three sources listed are comparatively self-published and his career doesn't seem that remarkable. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep the "of course" statements out of deletion nominations. It distracts people from looking at the real reason for deletion. Every editor, including those who are not registered, has the right to remove a PROD tag with or without explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 17:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since no hits in Google News, Scholar, and Books; the article and its references give me no reason to assume this person would meet the notability guidelines.Drmies (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Essentially the same results as Drmies's. Tried two spellings. As Thomas Pathiparambil (with a “b”): No citations in Google Scholar, no books in WorldCat, and zero news coverage according to Google News. As Thomas Pathiparampil (with a “p”): No citations in Google Scholar, no books in WorldCat, and one news entry on Google News.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you worked harder at it than I did. Power to you! Drmies (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent secondary sources; no eye-catching claim to notability either; fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2009 (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.