Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Poonen


 * 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.  A  Train ''talk 14:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sanjay Poonen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable business person. A Google search indicates that this person exists, and comes up with the usual vanity hits. Article is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, likely self-created given the kind of information and photos added; editor has repeatedly added non-encyclopaedic content and sourced to linked in and Facebook. Melcous (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite heroic effort by article creators, the subject is NN and the sources do not meet requirements for significant coverage. Possible self-promotion or otherwise. Creators have not been very forthcoming. Dloh cierekim  01:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have again reviewed sourcing. Although sourcing has improved in number, the 3rd party coverage does not go into significant depth about the subject. Passing references here and there. The bulk of sourcing is still from sources connected with the subject. Dloh cierekim  22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - One of the authors asked me on my talk page what part of the article would need to be cleaned up so that the article would no longer be subject to deletion. In my experience, that question (what can be removed to make the article acceptable) is typically asked about a promotional article by a conflict of interest author, who is desperate to get an article, typically about their employer, accepted, either to avoid speedy deletion, or in AFC.  No amount of cleanup will make a non-notable person notable (and removal of promotional content from a spam article will leave nothing).  If the authors cannot add to the article to make the subject notable, no amount of subtraction will help.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I dispute that this person is not notable. The person this article is about, is COO of the 5th largest software companies in the world, and has had a fair amount of news around him. Much of the criteria on notability applies to him - making him notable. There will always be debate among some who think he is notable, and others who think he isn't. There are others in similar type of business COO roles B. Kevin Turner that are just as notable. Further, there are over 20 references listed on the person, and there is nothing in the subsequent community edits of the article that are peacock self-promotional. I have seen other Wikipedia pages that are worse. They all point to legitimate articles, written by legitimate journalists in Fortune, Business Insider, that have been written about the person.User:twinpeaks1900 May 1, 2017  — twinpeaks1900 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Dloh  cierekim  10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep : definitely support keeping this page, as the person is notable and the sources cited are credible and reliable journals Dynamitecotton 02:30, 2 May 2017 — Dynamitecotton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Dloh  cierekim  10:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * comment have reviewed added sourcing since my post and maintain my position that there is insufficient depth of coverage. Mostly from corporate website and social media or PR fluff. Dloh cierekim  11:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that there has been a WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Whisperwire. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The only Keep votes have been blocked as sockpuppets. The AFD should continue because this is not a case for G5, as the article was created prior to the sockpuppetry.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

— Christophermaxim (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dloh cierekim  22:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * keep i am not a sockpuppet of the editors of the article, so don't dismiss feedback just because you think anyone who provides positive input is engaging in sockpuppetry. i have reviewed the article. it seems there are 2 issues at debate here. is the person Sanjay Poonen notable? the answer is yes, by the criteria that wikipedia lays out for notability, and comparison to others like him who are notable in their inustry (that one of the other editors was trying to make before someone struck out their feedback). second question is, are the sources all social media, ie facebook, twitter, linkedin. over 90% of the sources cited are credible journals or magazines, so this article is not just "pr fluff," as one of the critics suggests. so i vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophermaxim (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

— yes, i am a new contributor to wikipedia, and yes there is always a first date to start contributing to wikipedia, i am not an editor on this article, i just reviewed it. hopefully i will contribute to other wikipedia topics over time. dear User:Dlohcierekim stop intimidating new editors who join wikipedia from contributing to articles, it is supposed to be an open platform. don't attack the new editors, just debate the issues here - which are notability (the person is notable), and your accusation that the cited sources are all social media fluff (also not true).
 * Okay. Let's see.  User:Christophermaxim has made three edits, all of which are to content this AFD.  So far, so good.  Articles for Deletion is one of the less visible and more arcane features of Wikipedia, and is not the first place that a new editor will normally turn.  The idea that Christophermaxim simply decided to edit Wikipedia and simply happened to come to this particular contentious AFD, which has a history of sockpuppetry and may involve conflict of interest, and simply happened to show up to say that this article, and no other article, should not be deleted, is incredible in that it is not worthy of belief by a reasoning H. sapiens, and one editor should be one H. sapiens (in fact, on this AFD, editors were blocked for not each being a different hominid).  Since we have the word of Christophermaxim that they are a new editor, and not a sockpuppet, the most reasonable explanation is either that they were recruited for this purpose (they didn't say that they weren't) or that they were registered and not editing (lurking or sleeping) for a long time until they were needed by Poonen or his employer.  Okay.  They are not a sockpuppet, and my own opinion is that the guideline on meatpuppetry is incomprehensibly vague, so they were canvassed in some way.  Okay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Christophermaxim - User:Dlohcierekim was not intimidating new users, but was commenting on facts. Two of the previous editors are sockpuppets, and you have made no edits outside the area. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

— still vote keep. ok, granted i am new to wikipedia, so i don't know what the heck the term "meat-puppet" means (i personally find that term derogatory for an "open" environment like wikipedia). i am not a meat-puppet, nor I’m a vegetarian-puppet, nor am I any kind of puppet. maybe others who are making the accusations are sockpuppets or meat-puppets themselves. anyway i prefer not to call people by terms and names, just debate the issues. so, i come back to the core 2 issues being debated here. is this article about someone who is notable? and secondly, are the sources fluffy? i have reviewed this article once again, and all the sources. except for maybe 1-2, all the sources are credible and journalistic professional, not fluffy. and yes, the person is notable, based on all the criteria i can find that wikipedia lays out for notability, plus comparison to others like him who are notable in their industry. we should keep the debate focused on these 2 issues, not digress to name calling --User:Christophermaxim —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Christophermaxim - Maybe my point wasn't clear. I wasn't name-calling.  I don't know what a meatpuppet is either, and so I wasn't calling anyone a meatpuppet.  I said that the rule about meatpuppets is incomprehensible, and so I won't refer to anyone as a meatpuppet.  However, the concept of single-purpose accounts is clear, and a non-notable person is a non-notable person, even if single-purpose accounts defend them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Christophermaxim hasn't made any other edits except about this article, and so clearly isn't just a new account who happened to come this way first. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete subject is not notable. Christopher Maxim, everyone can see through your facade. You are clearly a meat-puppet. You didn't randomly decide to begin your editing career on this page. Lepricavark (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know whether Christophermaxim is a meatpuppet because I don't know what a meatpuppet is, and find the guideline on meatpuppetry to be incomprehensible. But I do know what a single-purpose account is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that this subject passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:31, 11 May 2017 (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.