Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shridhar Venkat


 * 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. Benefit of the doubt has been given after a number of speedy deletes, but no arguments to keep the article have been brought to the AFD debate. I was not salt at this time but would support an administrator doing so if recreation continues to be a problem. KaisaL (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Shridhar Venkat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability issue has no significant coverage and has no independent reliable sources does not pass WP:GNG,Further it has been speedily deleted a few times  FITINDIA&#160;(talk) 22:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete but Don't speedy this time -- I request that this article not be speedy deleted this time, even under criteria G11/G12 (or G4), since there is a potential argument to be made regarding the various sources, and the text is not unsalvageably advertissimal if notability were to be established. That said, reviewing the sources, I'm not convinced they are reliable or independent from the subject:  **CEO hangout, clearly not reliable (user submitted).
 * Akshayapatra.org, not independent.
 * 2013hydcxoconfluence.lassibsociety.org ... I'm not sure. I suspect it is not independent, but can't demonstrate it at this time.  I'm also not sure of it's status as a reliable source.  This said, this may be the article's best bet at establishing notability, as it can at least be argued.   Right now, I'm not convinced, and suggest it is not.
 * efworld.org, not independent.
 * yosuccess.org, appears to be either user submitted content, or paid content. At the very least, it's a publication that doesn't even have it's own Wikipedia article, suggesting non-notability of the source.
 * www.internationalnewsandviews.com, user submitted content, thus not reliable.
 * So, given all the above, I will !vote delete. But again, I think arguments are possible, so please don't speedy. Fieari (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - blatantly promotional. If Fieari wants it kept, he'd better fix the wording promptly. Deb (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Deb, I think you have me mistaken. I want it deleted, just not prodded. Fieari (talk)
 * No, I get that. But you seem to be the only one who thinks it is salvageable. Show us how. Deb (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's salvageable. I think someone (not me) could possibly make an argument that it was salvageable, and I'd be willing to work with said hypothetical person, but I doubt this will happen or that it is possible. Fieari (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete- Fails on WP:GNG. Totally promotional. Hitro   talk  20:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - blatant spam for non-notable businessman per WP:BIO. The charity he works with may be notable, but WP:Notability is not inherited. OnionRing (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2016 (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.