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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Padmalochanan Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined BLPPROD assuming good faith on the one reference added, to a book called "Unknown Philosophers" I can't find evidence of.

In any case, reference aside, I can't find information which would verify the existence or establish the notability of this fellow. Depending on what you think of the source, possibly A7. j⚛e decker^talk 05:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm the editor who added the PROD BLP when the article had no references at all. I'm glad that a reference has been added since then, but that reference itself is problematical. Where one might expect it to describe Padmalochanan Nair (on the page cited), the citation format suggests instead that Padmalochanan Nair is the author. Searching for the publisher, “Jagruti Books”, turns up Jagruti Books, but they produce blank books (“diaries, notebooks, agendas, office stationery”). Various other Websites such as linked-in, although not reliable sources for article content, confirm the nature of Jagruti Books. So the lone “source” citation is a combination of the name of this article, the current year, the phrase “unknown philosophers”, and the brand name from a blank notebook. Maybe I'm just cynical this week after finding another BLP which was a hoax, but I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about this.  Unician ∇  08:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I share your concern about that source. It was tempting to go with my gut and delete it at PROD, that I didn't may just be an abundance of caution. The title itself is ... suggestive. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unable to find solid links and with solid information, I found nothing for the book and since the article doesn't have much more information, there's not much to search. Probably a minor philosopher. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails verification, the cited book is not in OCLC, nor in the OPAC of the National Library of India (nationallibrary.gov.in), nor in the Online Union Catalogue of Indian Universities - INFLIBNET Union Catalogue (indcat.inflibnet.ac.in). --Bejnar (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2014 (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.