Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clem Seecharan

: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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

=[[Clem Seecharan]]=

:{{la|Clem Seecharan}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clem_Seecharan Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Clem Seecharan}})

Multiple issues for >1 year. Based on the notability that is (not) established in the current article, he clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|96%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|96%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Borderline keep A expectable number of books, although few of them are in more than 100 libraries. If one defines his field narrowly enough, he may well be a major expert within it. The argument of avoiding systematic bias is relevant: it does little harm to keep borderline notable articles as compared with the harm from not covering areas where usable sources are harder to find. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep: I think this policy should be considered when nominating an article for deletion. The subject of the article appears to have met the inclusion criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

: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.