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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 13:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sivan Sir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Refs are blogs. No real coverage. scope_creepTalk 20:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete leaving aside that this article is a mess and should be reduced to a stub if not deleted so it's not a hagiography, I don't see much evidence of notability. The Hindu Times reference is a (rather bad) book review, but while indicative of possible notability, doesn't itself provide it. The rest are worthless insofar as supporting a GNG claim. I found stray mentions but no SIGCOV in a search. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 09:52, 4 June 2022 (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.