Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajay Bakshi


 * 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. Consensus is that the sources do not appear to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ajay Bakshi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references cited are a dead link, two papers co-authored by him (not about him) and a page on the web site of a company he works for. Searches for better sources have produced LinkedIn, announcements of his appointment to a post at Manipal Health, YouTube, this Wikipedia article, brief notes about his career on the web site of a conference in which he took part, and so on, but nothing that amounts to substantial independent coverage of him. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. References do not support notability of this individual. The article was created and edited by multiple now-indefinitely-blocked socks of an editor who abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes. See Sockpuppet investigations/Itsmukeshhere. (My opinion is that this individual is an undisclosed paid editor.) Deli nk (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable health care administrator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup   [Talk]  04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources in-depth and in-depth and mention and mention and quote and mention and in-depth. Meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * first "in depth" source is a lightly dressed press release and short, about his appointment; second "in depth" source is a lightly dressed press release about the hospital geting a new piece of equipment where he says some things about that (this is passing mention); third "in depth" source is again a lightly dressed press release about the hospital adding beds; again he says some things about that. None of these are in depth about him. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. A more likely explanation is you voted 'Delete' without doing one iota of checking; now with clear-cut sources, you're reluctant to admit to being a drive-by deletionist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bad faith assumptions will get no where that you want to be, in WP. The sources in the article, the ones you cite, and the ones I found and didn't mention because they suck, do suck.  As I noted, fails GNG.  Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are unlikely to convince in a deletion debate, particularly in direct response to someone checking your claimed references - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure seems like bad faith to trash reliable in-depth independent references like this one and this one and then invoke personal attack when another contributor points out that 'Delete' votes have been made without any effort to check sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a famous saying about holes and digging that I think has its own Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's simpler: this article meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing bad faith about my evaluation that a source is a "lightly dressed press release" that you evaluate as being a "reliable in-depth independent reference". People evaluate things differently, in good faith, all the time.  The only "bad faith" going on here, is your characterization of my statement. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - hospital administrators are all too common. The sources recently found do not knock off my socks. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and, I meant to comment sooner, there is absolutely nothing here for any applicable notability or actually convincing substance, all it lists is his career and what it is about, that's a business listing, not an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister   talk  19:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.