Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajan Mahtani


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rajan Mahtani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. An internet search only reveals the subject's many websites and a LinkedIn profile. No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. BenLinus 1214 talk 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete-no notability to be found. Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- Agree with original nominator's fair summary. Educationtemple (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Can't help but wonder if people even bother to search for sources in these discussions. Simply selecting the News link in the find sources template atop provides several in-depth news articles about the subject on the very first page. The subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include:


 * All Africa article. Nyasa Times.
 * All Africa. All Africa.
 * All Africa
 * All Africa
 * All Africa
 * Zambia Reports
 * All Africa
 * Zambia Reports
 * All Africa
 * Zambia Reports
 * Zambia Reports
 * Zambia Reports
 * Zambia Reports
 * All Africa
 * Zambia Reports
 * All Africa
 * All Africa
 * Lusaka Times article. Lusaka Times.


 * – Topic notability is based on the availability of reliable sources that provide significant coverage, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America1000 00:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's funny…I was just using the main search link, which, if you follow it, shows just the subject's websites. By contrast, I agree with you that the news link provides many reliable sources. I say keep it with a good deal of cleanup. BenLinus  1214 talk 00:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In its current state article is nothing but worth delete. Educationtemple (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your rationale a bit further. I'm just interested to see your reasoning… BenLinus  1214 talk 15:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply - What is there to explain! What I read there (as of the current time and date) a stub article, sourced with 2 citations - One of which goes to a unreliable blog type website and another on the personal website of the subject. What explanation you are expecting from me?? WP is a not a place to hang the advertisement banners about personal websites! Educationtemple (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, primary sources are acceptable to verify content in Wikipedia articles. North America1000 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of the sources available,, are you still for deletion of the article? North America1000 07:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I am now for Keep. BenLinus  1214 talk 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per NorthAmerican1000 passes GNG. Valoem   talk   contrib  04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, lots of sources, passes WP:GNG. Should be improved/cleaned up, not deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2015 (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.