Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas kuzhinapurath


 * 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 per G4. I looked at the previously created article, and it was in fact better developed than the current version. The creator is a sock as are the new accounts below. It's clear to me that many of the accounts involved in the repeated recreation of this article years ago were also socks, but I can't check because they are. That's just some side information and is largely irrelevant to the delete result. Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas kuzhinapurath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per a previous discussion (Articles for deletion/Thomas Kuzhinapurath) a similar article created by the same contributor got deleted after discussion. However the creator says that at the time of the earlier discussion, there weren't enough notable sources, thus claiming that the article now has proper notable sources. Omkar 1234  talk  15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * KeepThe article should not be deleted. The article is well written on verifiable sources. (SMCC2017 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC))
 * Delete promotional autobiography. Amazon refs seem more intended to drive book sales than to provide reliable sources. Cabayi (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep What about the article in Encyclopedia of South Indian Literature by Dr. Madhubala Sinha. (Prabha Sekhar (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep; the article in the other encyclopedia, by itself, is conclusive as to the notability question. I would be open to a WP:TNT deletion if the article really were horrid, but one could always reduce this to a stub before starting over.  Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, here in North America, the holdings for this encyclopedia are academic libraries; I expect that this encyclopedia is a trustworthy publication, not some autopublished vanity thing. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep An article that covers 3 pages of an encyclopedia of South Indian Literature really shows the notability of the subject. (Syam Kumar1959 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2017 (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.