Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganesh Nana


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ganesh Nana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ganesh Nana is a poorly-done copy and paste job from a publicity profile from this person's employer. This person is not a "leading economist", and I'm not even sure what it means to be renowned for "his work with numbers". At the moment, this reads like a promotional page for a fairly obscure consultant. If this page is kept, I think it needs to be substantially trimmed and changed. Opusinter (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 27.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  22:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (orate)  @ 22:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete But "work with numbers" is priceless. Ray  Talk 13:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - no credible assertion, and some really smarmy praise. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, it's a pretty poor article, but he seems to be notable to me. I see him on TV all the time. If you google him, he gets quoted in the news frequently; latest item that I saw (looked for a couple of minutes) was four days ago. Deleting the article doesn't seem the right thing to do.  Schwede 66  18:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many bit players who are interviewed on the news frequently. Each big bank or consulting firm has a couple of media faces who frequently appear on the nightly news and in papers. An example is somebody like Shamubeel Eaqub. But this doesn't make them notable. If the article is kept, it must be made much shorter. There's certainly no evidence, besides his own publicity profile, to suggest he is a leading economist who has made important contributions to economics. And I say this as a professional economist from New Zealand. Opusinter (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Purely promotional. Even if the subject is notable for some reason, the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. WP:G11 says to delete "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's a regular provider of media commentary on economics in New Zealand. I have very roughly hacked at the article in a vague attempt at despamming it; further pruning and replacement with better quality info would be welcomed. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the big improvement, Daveosaurus. If you can find some independent sources that say something substantial about him, I'll change my vote. The one on the page now is by his employer, so it's not independent. I did a quick search of Google News Archive, and saw only quotes from him but nothing about him. A similar search on Google Books turns up a bunch of things he's written, and some mentions in the acknowledgements of books, but nothing that struck me as clearly meeting notability guidelines. If you find some clear-cut sources that establish notability, would you please post them on the talk page and leave a note here? That would sway my opinion and probably other editors', too. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Not a notable person. I did not find any reliable sources, which shows his notability. Strongly recommend deletion for the page. Jussychoulex (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why "speedy"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Major writer and media commentary for economics in New Zealand; he's no Charles Krauthammer, but does seem to be a recognized expert and active in mainstream news reporting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. As for WP:ECONOMIST/WP:JOURNALIST, looks short too. I could be convinced otherwise by links or evidence of repeated/major media exposure.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2013 (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.