Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mani Subramanian

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 keep. (Non admin closure). —Qst 18:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mani Subramanian

Mani Subramanian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This article was nominated for speedy deletion under criteria A7. It is unclear if the article qualifies for an A7 speedy, but the article's talk page also indicates that reliable sources for this article may not be available. Forwarding article to AfD for further consideration. No opinion at this time --Allen3 ^talk 10:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to delete. I entered his name into google and I get plenty of hits that are consistent with the article's content. New York Dreams (talk)
• Week Keep There are some sources, like this one. Seems the head of a company with $1B in annual sales[1] is worth an article. CitiCat ^♫ 13:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think this article should be deleted. I could find quite a number of references on the net. Also please refer to the talk page where an individual enterprenuer link is given quoting multiple sources.

Keep. I am seeing reference from Zee News website. Don't go by stub article of Zee News. It is prestigious TV news channel in India. sharara 18:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability well established with reliable sources. This is good example of why it's a bad idea to slap a "speedy delete" tag on an article just a few minutes after creation. It's being developed nicely, and maybe the creator would have been able to do more work on it if he/she hadn't had to waste time contesting deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:HEY. I originally tagged the article for CSD, and discussed sources with the author on the talk page. The article in its original form didn't make it clear why the individual was notable, and I think my csd tag was (at the time) justified. This sort of article is why we have a hangon template - and it did its job, as the article is in good condition now. In its current form, the article is a fine stub with potential for more growth. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:22, 19 November 2007 (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.