Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.C. Natarajan


 * 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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

R.C. Natarajan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. This article fails to meet WP:PROF, and is highly unlikely to be notable under any other criteria. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you suggest some edits and additions that are required to make the article meet the notability/other guidelines? Amazingandlively (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added new, important content at multiple places in the article along with citations. Please review once again. Amazingandlively (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. He would not meet WP:PROF as a scholar. The question is whether he is notable as an administrator. We accept being the president (or equivalent title) of a university, and we have accepted head (however called) of a freestanding medical school, and I think a free-standing law law school. I don't see we have any clear consensus about the head of a free-standing business school. Most we have dealt with have been components of universities.  I'm prepared to extent it in some cases. The problem here is the promotionalism of the article, whee he is taking responsibility for the accomplishments of the school. Unfortunately the article is worded in a   misleading way, The lead give   information that might be taken to indicate it's one of the 2 top business schools in India, but the data given does not match the information in triple accreditation, and by the country's own measure,  found much lower down in the article, the school ranks considerably lower. There is also a listing of minor awards to the school--best business school in South India is much less significant than best in Indi; membership on a committee is much lesss ignificant than chairman. Typically, the listing of minor credentials implies that the article wouldn't be sufficiently long and impressive if limited to major ones. Obviously some of this could be fixed, but this is nonetheless  not a good place to set the precedent  of what we accept.  DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please re-consider. As you say some of it can be fixed, and I need some pointers around what can be done to improve the article further, for which there is scope for sure. Amazingandlively (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  01:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The institution is not major enough to qualify for WP:Prof. Not other cause for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC).

I guess the article is about the person and not the institution per se. Amazingandlively (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as examining this still found overall questionability and nothing actually convincing, thus delete. SwisterTwister   talk  03:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit on how the article is questionable and lacks conviction? Thanks. Amazingandlively (talk) 03:49, 21 July 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.