Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarang Pitale


 * 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. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG, WP:PROF j⚛e deckertalk 02:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarang Pitale

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Vanity page almost certainly created by the subject of the article. Minimal indication of notability (but, not something which would generally be deleted under speedy delete.)     Joel Why? (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just to note that WP:COI suggests that we avoid using the word "vanity" as it is "accusatory and discouraging".  Given the circumstances I find it easy to assume good faith on the part of the nominator and I hope this is taken as a respectful reminder of a small policy note with which s/he may not be familiar.  Ubelowme U  Me  22:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see nothing in the article or from above Google searches that indicates the subject meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC at present. Might do one day, but not at the moment. Qwfp (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator and Qwfp that this individual doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF and/or its "Average professor" test.  Perhaps at some future point, and there's no bar to recreation if and when. Ubelowme U  Me  16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A total of three cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable, lack of references - Anbu121 ( talk me ) 14:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria and also per WP:TOOSOON. The citation counts are too low for WP:PROF criterion C1, and the society membership listed in the article are open to all and therefore also don't convey notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with above re WP:PROF Vertium '' When all is said and done 22:05, 12 July 2012 (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.