The result was no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced resume, therefore having serious pov issues from the very outset and coming into conflict with Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Notability and verifiability are questionable, with only 1880 ghits on the surname itself. Plus we aren't told what his first name is. Contested prod. MER-C 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
count does not determine how famous an Indian is :-).
Let me site an example here. Every kid in the Indian state of Kerala starts studying their language with a mention about Thunchath Ezhuthachan, who is the father of Malayalam Language. That maps to around 30,000,000 Keralites who knows this name. And the number of Google search results I get for same is this: "Results 1 - 10 of about 411 for thunchath ezhuthachan. (0.21 seconds)"
Simynazareth 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)simynazareth[reply]
Comment A badly written article is not a criteria for deletion. It is a criteria for rewrite. He has not just set a "Clinic" Just because some one is not included here it does not mean that another person with similar credentials should not have an article (like just because one article exists, it is not a criteria for another keep). Notability is a subjective phenomenon and hence no can can PROVE notability (unlike verifiability which can be "shown"). Please read the links or do a search yourself. Media coverage in India is vastly different from Media Coverage in Western World. One Google Hit for a personality in India is equivalent to 100 Google Hits in Western world due to the language factor, different fonts used by vernacular newspapers and the simple fact that not all media in India have a web presence listing their articles Doctor Bruno 12:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]