Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilip Sankarreddy


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Dilip Sankarreddy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The more recent version of this article had been around for five years so it deserves a bit better than speedy deletion. In a quick glance through the references I did not find any in-depth assessment of the guy. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep. No part in the content is advertising, promotion or spam. The content is fact-based and supported by ample number of citations. Many acts of the person in different fields are notable, and the person continues to be an influencer, resulting in the person being termed as notable. The article and most of the sections in the article has been in Wikipedia since 5 years. Two more articles in Wikipedia, including an important article of a political party in India, link to the person in this article. The article has been recently updated with more citations. &mdash; Townblight (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can see nothing notable despite the many refs provided which are mostly Press releases and funding bids for a pedal powered electricity generator. Nothing here that indicates notability for the article subject.  Velella  Velella Talk 11:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Dear editor, it is not just a "funding bid" as pointed out by you, but the person has actually won the award as mentioned in the news article. Townblight (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Subject has not received substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and the article reads like a pure advertisement. Anup   [Talk]  21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Besides not meeting notability guidelines, a copyvios search shows that sections of the article were copied directly from the subject's own website. CherylHew (talk) 11:56, 24 November 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.