Deletion of Durga Nanda Jha

Comment: This article fails  This is a Google search on his precise name:http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Durga+Nanda+Jha&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images here Many of these hits are from answers.com or wikipedia and just mirror copies of this article. That is sufficient reason to remove this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The article's "creator" does not |own the article, so your point is more confusing.  Throwing ghits at other editors is not basis for deletion, either.  Precisely why do you think that the attempted assassin of a sitting king is not a notable subject for an enccylopedia?  Maybe if you elaborate on why you think regicide is not notable, others can understand where you're coming from.  Regicide is one of those crimes that tends to get extensive long-term international attention.  This particular attempted assassination is mentioned in Britannica and a couple of other on-line encyclopedias.  Again, if you can help establish why Wikipedia should not note this particular regicide or the person who committed it (the name not available through a free glance, only the king) then others could understand where you're coming from and might agree with you.  But, to repeat, "owner gone AWOL" isn't a reason for deletion on an encyclopedia where there are no owners of articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: This article is unsubstantial and may be little more than a stub. Not enough . It also has hints of  because one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:POV)