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. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nahas Mala[edit]

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

WP:BLP of the leader of a student organization, which just asserts that he exists and contains neither the substance nor the sourcing needed to make his existence any concern of ours -- apart from one article about him on a website that looks suspiciously more like a WordPress blog than a real media outlet, every other reference here is either the organization's own primary source content about itself, or a glancing namecheck of his existence as a soundbite-giver in an article that is substantively about something else. This is not the type of coverage required to get someone over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - subject is mentioned at Students Islamic Organisation of India, but beyond that I do not see that he has been the subject of coverage that would be necessary to ensure NPOV, NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Additionally, this is touching upon WP:NOTRESUME. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we were to accept the Deccan Digest as a reliable source, there's no substantial coverage there. And as pointed out by the nominator, none of the other references are really about the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2017 (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.