Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganesh Chandrasekaran


 * 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ganesh Chandrasekaran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A COI article that fails WP:MUSICBIO.

There is sort of "plenty" of coverage, but it still fails WP:GNG, and WP:MUSICBIO. As, the latter guideline states: [the sources should not be] any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.

Most of the available sources are some sort of puff pieces, or articles/news articles for the film that hasnt even been released yet.

There is some coverage which is related to that film again, and the subject gets passing reference. Remaining sources are either user generated or similar.

For passing WP:MUSICBIO, subject has to pass one among twelve requirements; this subject doesnt pass even one. — usernamekiran (talk)  04:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — usernamekiran (talk)   20:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — usernamekiran (talk)   20:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — usernamekiran (talk)   21:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient coverage of any depth or peristence in reliable sources to pass the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO: There are solely passing mentions in news outlets, and even less in the literature. As touched on in the nomination, what coverage the subject does receive is second-hand and not discussing him directly. "Too soon", perhaps, as we might say elsewhere. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 15:16, 24 August 2018 (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.