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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T.K.V._Rajan (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)

This article came up on the community channel as needing clean-up for grammar, which I have done, essentially trimming it down to a quarter of its initial volume for unsourced claims, embellishment and obvious puffery. With all those removed, it feels like the person lacks notability and significance in their field of work and is subject to deletion. Most likely was created back in 2017 for promotional purposes as the untrimmed version had a lot of references to names of DVDs, exhibitions and other self-serving mentions.

Nearlyevil665 (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 08:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most references for him are passing mentions at best. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:40, 31 August 2020 (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.