Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. P. Mukundan

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 keep. Tone 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. P. Mukundan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he served for many years on the national executive of India’s governing party. Mccapra (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of national executive of India’s governing party doesn't make him notable. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and no evidence he played a major role in politics or election campaigning .Thus Delete.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I have listed that below. 137.97.184.23 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM. 137.97.184.23 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Clearly satisfy WP:GNG as there are plenty of independent reliable sources – The News Minute [1], Business Line [2], Mathrubhumi [3][4], Deccan Chronicle [5][6], The New Indian Express [7][8], Kerala Kaumudi [9], The Hindu [10], Rediff.com [11], The Indian Express [12] and there are plenty more. 137.97.184.23 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable enough according to the references cited by (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs an independent assessment of the sources added by User:137.97.184.23
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:137.97.184.23. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources appear to establish notability but the article needs a lot of work to get the information from those articles onto the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources indicated by 137.97.184.23, GNG/NBASIC notability established. Given that the individual could get as high as possible and not qualify under NPOL I would clarify that they are therefore not limited by not satisfying NPOL (as it doesn't apply to them). I thought I'd be piling on but I realised it was actuallt 3, not 2 deletes so far. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.