Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sree Narayana Trust

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 keep. Enough sources are available to qualify for notability. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana Trust[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~Subject fails to meet GNG. No reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Beccaynr (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books search linked above seems pretty productive. What were the nominator's grounds for dismissing sources such as this? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Phil Bridger, there appear to be adequate sources. Ingratis (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ~~the nom has been blocked for disruptive editing: does that invalidate this nomination? Ingratis (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)~~ temporarily only, apparently, as now unblocked again. Ingratis (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and now blocked again as a sockpuppet. Speedy keep criterion 4 would appear to apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important topic though underdeveloped. Apart from presence of adequate sources, a sizeable number of links on Wikipedia point to this article. --Gurubrahma (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2021 (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.