Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Nechupadam


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Nechupadam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems non-notable. Does not fulfill WP:GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete -Yes, doesn't appear to be meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO as they lack significant coverage in "multiple" secondary, independent and reliable sources. Only source that discusses the subject in detail. All others are passing mentions. This one may help with writing some uncontroversial contents about subject, but surely not with establishing notability as being interview, is not independent of the subject (see also, 8th question). Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a run-of-the-mill dentist. The sources linked by Anupmehra above contain a degree of puffery that is almost embarrassing - they cannot be taken seriously. And as hinted, the second source does not appear to be independent of him. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2014 (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.