Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John P. Matthew

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. joe decker ^talk 15:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Matthew

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

Lacks secondary sources, couldn't find a single reliable source. Another page in Category:Indian bloggers which fails WP:GNG. Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON - does not yet seem to have done anything particularly notable. JMWt (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cant find anything worthy to satisfy GNG. Also the article is here since 2007 and its actually WP:TOOLATE. Also, created by Sasikumar10 who seems to be an WP:SPA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - didn't find enough in depth coverage to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 9 December 2015 (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.