Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saju Chackalackal

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saju Chackalackal

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

There is a lack of independent reliable sources, only self-sourced information seems to be available. Jacona (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated and added reliable sources to the entry. User:Jeffshawnjose —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep - Has written books and there are a few independent links there about him. If his profile wont raise from that in some time then I'd vote delete. Antonio Chakala Martin (siguan hablando) 14:27, 3 March, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 cites in GS. Sorry, even for philosophy this doesn't rate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2016 (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.