Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anantha Babbili


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Anantha Babbili

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPROF. Potentially notable though. Coverage is Slim Pickens. Been on the cat:nn list for five years. Refs never been updated. Full prof at major university.  scope_creep Talk  22:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: The subject has generated a couple of sources(1, 2, & 3) during the past 4 weeks or so due to an event (his joining the board of regents of the Del Mar College). We know though that one event does not make a subject notable. AmshitBalcon (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism,  and India.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - there was a small flurry (and I mean small) of coverage over his appointment (one of the above sources is quite brief, and another is a non-reliable source). Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel 5969  TT me 01:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify. I think removal is probably too radical in this case. The article deserves its chance. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is not a draftify case. If there is references, put them so we can look at them per WP:THREE. Its had a notability tag for five years. Now's the time to determine if its notable.   scope_creep Talk  15:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability requirements are also placed on drafts. In fact, they are even stricter. I'm not against removal, but I just thought that if sources that meet the notability criteria are found, the text of the article won't be lost in this case. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I know. I have the page reviewer permission. But this where we decided whether its notable or not per WP:V. Its a 14 years old article.   scope_creep Talk  18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why is the decision with the draft bad? Extra junk that will just take up the reviewers time, you think? Evilfreethinker (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete he fails WP:NPROF very clearly which is where his main contribution will be but there isnt much notability there. A little bit of coverage saying he got appointed to a board is not what SIGCOV looks like. --hroest 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The closest he comes to WP:NPROF is the Provost job - I don't see anything else that could even remotely apply. And no WP:GNG either. -- asilvering (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2023 (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.