Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayram Menon


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayram Menon
Non-notable bio. Only 19 Google hits, appears to be President and CEO of non-notable corporation. Brian 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Delete per nom - Richfife 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks non-notable. But what is the Mauritus based venture capital firm being talked about. If insight is provided into that, there is a possibility of reconsideration; though if it were all correct, then google should have known it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe the venture capital firm is United Capital Partners which also appears non-notable. I can't turn up any information about it with Google and the article is essentially empty. It is PROD since the 25th of July. Brian 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Thanks for the link. As you said, it is unlikely to change my opinion about the topic. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete I think the spirit of wikipedia is lost if you guys decide at random to eliminate pages purely based on your understanding of this matter. I am from Mauritius. I have heard of this individual and group. Fairly notable amongst the investment circles. 0SIRIS 07:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I tend to agree with 0SIRIS. Shouln't we try to verify through some independent sources before concluding that this article must be deleted? Google may not have very efficient means of pulling info about Mauritius. JAnne


 * Comment Well, yeah, in a perfect world. The problem here is that there are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia.  And a lot of them shouldn't be there.  Hoaxes have a nasty habit of staying up for months.  The creator of the article, by default, should be expert on the subject enough to provide evidence of notability.  Random passers by like myself should not be expected to spend plane fare to Mauritius to verify the truth of an article.  So, the policy is of necessity "guilty until proven innocent."  The AFD process is an attempt to deal with this.  You attest he's notable, but...  You don't provide any backup sources that we can check.  Which investment circles are you talking about?  Where is the evidence of notablity?  We need more.  Sorry. - Richfife 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Above and beyond that, this is exactly the kind of article that a scam artist would create as part of an attempt to build substance for a fictional company that exists to bilk people out of their money. Standards for inclusion therefore need to be particularly high.   "You can trust me!  Look at my Wikipedia bio!"  - Richfife 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Strange theory "gulity until proven innocent" - isnt it supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". Anyways its upto the author to validate. Maybe 0SIRIS can throw some light. I have come across this venture cap company at Mauritius having made investments in Brazil. The company is not ficticious otherwise agencies like SEC, EDGAR and FSC will not maintain their information. JAnne 07:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In a court of law, Innocent until proven guilty. In Wikipedia, it's the other way around.  I could say "George W. Bush is actually Grover Cleveland after a DNA reformat by space aliens.  Prove me wrong!"  It's the author's responsibility to provide sources for information, not the readers.  If there are no sources, the article can't stay.  End of story. - Richfife 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article itself should include the sources to demonstrate that it is verifiable and notable. This one does not. It reads much like many bios that are speedily deleted. Brian 11:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)btball


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unverified and should be removed --RMHED 15:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. the article was nominated July 28th and no edits to the article has been made to provide any sources.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another non-notable person. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator due to lack of verifiability. Yamaguchi先生 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I tend agree with some of you on lack of verifiability on google - however do take cognizance that in the case with many "Indian" names, the right spelling could be a combination of either Jayram, Jairam, Jayaram. This person is known in banking & investment circles in India as Jay Menon. Anyways, that is my opinion & I wonder if it at all matters. I have read a few comments by other wikipedians. There seems to be a group of wikipedians who are more keen to delete out of a preconceived consensus. That might also explain the repeated PROD & AFD attempts by the same group of wiki admins 0SIRIS 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 0SIRIS, you already stated your opinion above, you shouldn't be doing so a second time. I searched under all the variations of Jay Menon that you mentioned and only turned up 19 Google hits. Hardly notable. If he is notable, and more importantly verifiable, someone needs to supply the references. See the policy WP:VER. In a nutshell "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." This AfD has been open since July 28 and nobody has been able to supply any verifiable information about Jay Menon. Brian 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)btball


 * Comment your statement on verifiability is Contoversial! I did a google on +Jay +Menon +Venture +Capital and got around 20,900 hits. Now we all know that not all may relate to this individual. However that's different from the 19 that you have been quoting. So there is a contradiction on your own statement. Now when I tried +Jayaram +Menon +Investor I got around 298 hits. The "source" of verifiability was initiated by you, which doesn't hold ground. However a portion of your comment does makes sense & on that point I agree with you that the author should have stated facts and cited sources. 0SIRIS 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Google search I used was "Jay Menon" (and the other variations. When I filter out Wikipedia with -Wikipedia I only come up with 19 that appear that they could possibly be this Jay Menon. If someone can provide verifiable information about why Jay Menon is notable, I'll be glad to change my opinion from Delete to Keep but I've already spent a lot of time personally searching for verifiable information about his notability and haven't succeeded. Thanks.  Brian 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Comment A Google search on +Jay +Menon +Venture +Capital turns up all sorts of stuff that has 2 or 3 of those words, but not the rest. It's not a valid search.  I want to be polite here, but, please, put up or shut up.  Don't say "I got X results from Google search Y".  Post links to actual pages that verify notability.  "Well known in financial circles" is a meaningless statement.  You are the only person currently opposing this deletion. - Richfife 19:08, 9 August 2006 (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.