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. MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Sivaramakrishnan Murali

Sivaramakrishnan Murali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Heavy promotional article, will need a complete rewrite to meet our standards. I can't establish the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Solomon 7968 16:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 16:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• There are decent some Gbooks and Gscholar results. Problem is, this article has been so devotedly created and crafted by SPA promotional editor User:Harischandra over 7 years -- who is clearly Murali himself or someone affiliated -- that I wonder of WP:TNT doesn't apply. The article would need to be heavily edited for spammy tone, verifiability, etc., and then the article would need to be maintained so that the SPA or another account doesn't do it all over again. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Gscholar cites are almost non-existent. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:28, 31 July 2016 (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.