Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajmohan Pillai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No Concensus with strong suggestion that sources found in this debate are added to the article. Davewild (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajmohan Pillai

Rajmohan Pillai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Suggest Speedy deletion - Vanity article that has been re-created numerous times by User:Vinodgr. Listed here for consensus. Pastordavid 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • keep and strongly oppose speedy I can immediately find a national newspaper covering this person via google... though the subject matter is not included in the article and probably should be. indian express newspaper. I'm objecting to the speedy because this is not a recreation of the same material, or if it is, the previous versions were deleted unfairly. "no claims of notability" is a blatant falsehood. i kan reed 23:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable and because it appears to be a vanity article. Handschuh-talk to me 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are certainly claims to notability here, but it's whether anyone can provide multiple reliable non-trivial third party sources...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed there are claims to (in Wiki terms marginal) notability here, but not convinced by the references given or found searching. Springnuts 12:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are sources available: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Epbr123 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
comment: First ref does not read as independent. Shades of this too in second article - which mentions that one book is as yet unpublished. Third ref just proves he exists - the article is not primarily about him. Final ref is a report of an interview: this is not notability in the wiki sense. This is not the same as "fame" or "importance". See WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Springnuts (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The first two weren't published by Rajmohan Pillai or anyone associated with him, so they are independant; they may contain quotes, but so does Wikipedia. The third ref does seem to be primarily about him. Epbr123 (talk) 13:14, 18 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.