Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahesh Verma


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Mahesh Verma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was a declined Speedy deletion, as I did not feel that it met the criteria for speedy deletion.

There is a claim to notability, but although I do not agree with a speedy deletion, I do feel that this article does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Worthy though the gentleman may be, worthiness does not equate to notable. I feel that it is a decision for the community here to decide upon. Obviously, as the nominator, I veer towards the delete end of the spectrum!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Notable per WP:NACADEMICS and WP:ANYBIO. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Definite keep Notability established per WP:ANYBIO, meeting both criteria, awards and contributions and also on WP:NACADEMICS, criteria nos, 2, 3, 6, and 8. --jojo@nthony (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Padma Shri is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am very surprised at the present nomination, which is made on the basis of notability. The article was originally put forward for speedy deletion as promotional (WP:CSD), which seems to me a far better rationale for deletion than questions about the subject's notability. The article is totally promotional from start to finish, telling us over and over again how wonderful Mahesh Verma is, and it is totally unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. I am, of course, fully aware of the fact that articles which are totally promotional but on potentially notable subjects are often defended on the grounds that "it could be re-written so that it is suitable", but in my experience editors who advance that as a "keep" reason virtually never actually do the re-writing: once an article is kept so that it can be re-written it is then just left. If anyone wants to blow it up and start over then that will be fine, but the present article is totally unsuitable, and I see no benefit in keeping it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments While I respect JamesBWatson's experience, I beg to disagree with him on this point; the abundance of a notable person's achievements should not be construed as promotion. I am afraid if it is taken further, an article creator would be tempted to leave out parts of information fearing deletion, which otherwise would render the article more comprehensive. In this article, no statements have been repeated barring those in the lead section and there are no peacock or judgmental usages. The length of the article or the affluence of claims only reflect the subject's achievements or the richness of his career. It would be a sacrilege if a Padma Shri and B. C. Roy awardee is denied an article just because the narration of his achievements which, in the first place, earned him the awards, is too long.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments jojo@nthony has said most of what I would have said. If there are no peacock words, all positive claims are verifiable, then I won't call it promotional. If any critical commentary exist about how Mahesh Verma is not wonderful, that should be added. Not that the article be deleted and re-written. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 16:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments User:EricEnfermero has since done a good job in toning down the article.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2014 (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.