Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Jain (businessman)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Rakesh Jain (businessman)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The gentleman must be notable for himself. He can not inherit notability from his employer. There is no notability asserted nor verified. Indeed, the article is also an advert for him. Fiddle  Faddle  09:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment References of a sort have been added. Here is an analysis of the references as they stand in this version:


 * http://www.vccircle.com/news/others/2011/10/21/reliance-general-insurance-appoints-rakesh-jain-ceo Press release or PR piece. Primary source. Fail
 * http://www.business-standard.com/article/pf/general-insurance-rakesh-jain-114020200793_1.html Interview with the gentleman. Primary source. Fail
 * https://www.reliancegeneral.co.in/insurance/About-Us/Reliance-General-Insurance.aspx About his employer. No mention of the man. Fail
 * http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/banking/reliance-general-insurance-diversifying-into-new-areas-segments/article4941502.ece Interview with the gentleman. Primary source. Fail
 * http://www.business-standard.com/article/pf/general-insurance-rakesh-jain-115020800783_1.html Trivia Q&A by the gentleman. Fail
 * http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=32697591&privcapId=9899013&previousCapId=9899013&previousTitle=ICICI%2520Lombard%2520General%2520Insurance%2520Company%2520Limited While one might consider Bloomberg to be authoritative, this is simply a factual conformation that he holds this position. Borderline, but acceptable within a pool of suitable other references
 * http://www.business-standard.com/article/press-releases/rakesh-jain-wins-icai-award-2009-for-best-cfo-in-financial-services-sector-110020300088_1.html/ Press release or PR piece. Primary source. Fail
 * http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/we-are-offering-service-guarantee-to-restore-customer-faith-reliance-general-insurance/1174226/ Press release or PR piece. Primary source. Fail


 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. These do not comply. The addition is a small example of WP:BOMBARD Fiddle   Faddle  14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with Reliance General Insurance as the article stands now or keep if improved. As the CEO of a fairly major company, there is a good chance Jain is notable.  However, the current sourcing doesn't prove it and I didn't immediately find better sources.  There may well be some - it is a good deal of working sorting through the literally hundreds of sources that quote in on some fact about RGI to find ones actually about the man - so if they can be found, the article can be kept.  Regardless, the few sources pieces of info would be appropriate as part of the RGI article, so a merge seems to be the best option at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above reasoning, although I did not check the sources myself. The world is full of non-Notable CEOs. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Linked-In. Not seeing any point in a redirect either, as the current title isn't something users are likely to enter into the search field. Pax 08:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The point would be that there is useful information that is relevant to the company article and worth merging. Specifically, Jain's history at the company. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So move over the information already. Your three response posts in this AfD are nearly as long as the text body of the whole short article. Pax 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I move the content, the AfD can't be closed as delete as per our licensing terms since attribution for the content is required. As such, I prefer not to make the merge until the AfD ends.  Otherwise, I am "forcing" my suggested outcome.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. Neutralitytalk 20:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote. If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, there is no reason to comment. See WP:MAJORITY --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. What an unnecessary and snarky comment - and one that, funnily enough, adds nothing of value. As an editor who has spent a very long time on this project, I can assure you that I am well aware of policy. In any case, I do not find it useful to recapitulate arguments that have already been amply made above. To be clear, I agree completely with Timtrent that the references do not support notability. A redirect would also be futile, because it is an implausible search term, as User:Раціональне анархіст pointed out. In any case, essays (including the one you cite) are not policy. Neutralitytalk 20:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't add pure votes if you are offended by people pointing out they add nothing to the conversation. As an experienced admin, you surely realize that a comment that is just a vote will be discounted, so why add it? ... And amazingly, while you now repeated what others said, you still didn't bother to contribute to the discussion on only point that anyone has debated - whether anything is worth merging or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done engaging with you on this point. It's clearly not a "pure vote"; it's an "I agree with the above-stated rationale." In any case, I have expressed my opinion, and I will leave it at that. Neutralitytalk 00:01, 8 May 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.