Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Srinivasan (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Numerically, the deletes are in the majority, but not what I would normally call a consensus. However, the keep arguments don't impress me as being well-founded in policy. I would have liked to see the references supplied by get a more complete analysis, but I'm willing to go with 's review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Rajeev Srinivasan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails general notability. Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 02:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now unless better can be found and applied as I found some links at News, Books, Highbeam and WP:INDAFD but perhaps nothing convincingly better. Notifying past users, and  and past user .  SwisterTwister   talk  05:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation if more can be found. First AfD suggested notability, but none of that appears in the article. Grutness...wha?  01:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Google News and Books give some evidence why this person can be notable.Cinelover (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am interested to know more about him, but I am not sure, if sufficient references are available - which year was he born, when did he graduate, what is his current job etc. He is definitely not a writer as he is an MBA with a tech back-ground J mareeswaran (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable has been widely quoted -

An incomplete list, and not all major publications, I see a Lulu there, but enough for me to vote keep!! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Subject is notable per WP:AUTHOR - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Widely quoted is not notability, which needs references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements  DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: As per user Khandke clearly notable. 111.119.239.252 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, press releases and being quoted are not sufficient to get past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment He wouldn't be widely quoted if he wasn't presumed to be an expert in his area. I agree with that showing that someone is the "go to" person for a topic does add to their notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Seems borderline delete; subject does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR. Delta13C (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - thanks for the refs listed above but, really, there is nothing of substance there. Basically, per DGG. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 3 December 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.