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The result was nomination withdrawn. Addhoc (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venkanna H. Naik[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strange and unsourced, possibly a hoax possibly true ya just don't knowCholga^talK! 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked sock. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unreferenced and badly written. Dreamspy (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It would be more constructive to clean-up articles which are unreferenced and badly written than deleting them. --Oldak Quill 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dreamspy CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a reference to the article that confirms the the subject was District collector (the senior colonial government official) of Bijapur District, which has a present-day population of about 2 million. This would make him roughly equivalent to a mayor of Houston or Brisbane. I think that gets him past WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be plenty of independent book sources out there (see refs and http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22V.+H.+Naik%22). --Oldak Quill 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources seem to show notability. matt91486 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger above. I'm not sure about the sources, as from what I can tell they seem to be little more than passing mentions, but the position certainly confers notability. --jonny-m t 16:23, 9 March 2008 (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.