Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Bhandari (2nd nomination)

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Bhandari[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced Biography that has carefully dodged attempts to delete this article. Previous AfD nomination was Speedy Closed prior to closure of the AfD discussion. Article was restored and Userfied so that an interested editor could work on it. 3 hours later the editor moves the article back to the mainspace (with no substantial improvements). This article needs to be deleted and stay deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Sad to say, this stub is an improvement over what was originally speedied; that does not however indicate notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's no longer a resume, which is good. It's still unreferenced and non-notable, which is bad. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A quick search provided some hits but I think they refer to another individual(s). Given the circumstances and the very recent AfD, I don't think a more thorough search would yield something, but usual caveats applies - frankie (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The original AfD would have closed today had it not been speedied and that's how I discovered it. Hasteur (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete It has been revised to be consistent with Biographies of Living Persons (BLP), consistent with guidelines including NPOV, V and NOR and consistent with thousands of similar BLP pages. OTRS permission was provided and verified. It is now well referenced and notable. Hasteur - the page was moved to mainspace and heavily edited to its current version so admins would be able to clearly see the edits from the page that was previously deleted and what the changes were to make it compliant and referenced BLP. Mangopr (talk) — 3 June 2011 comment added 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The WP:REFUND is supposed to be used so you can improve the article prior to moving back to mainspace.
Because most of the BLP violating items have been removed the claim to notability for this BLP is not enough for Wikipedia standards.
All BLPs must have a cited assertion that comes from a reliable source in which the subject is a significant portion of the source and not a passing mention.
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why comparing to other articles is anappropriate.

For these reasons, the article is not in conformity with the standards you quoted above and therefor should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~Hasteur - OK I now understand about WP:REFUND. Was not aware of it earlier. No harm done since the article was heavily edited with intention to making it compliant taking your feedback into account. Each line in the BLP's has cited assertions from reliable sources including national newspapers that speak to the specific assertion in the article. You also point out that BLP violating items have been removed. OTRS permission was provided and verified. The article is consistent with NPOV, V and NOR. Yet after all the edits to bring the article in compliance - your recommendation remains unchanged. What gives? Frankly your recommendation does not seem fair or reasonable. How would you rewrite it to conform to Wikipedia standards? I think it will be helpful for everyone to see how you would edit it make it compliant. Mangopr (talk) — 5 June 2011 comment added 09:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of un-bolding your !vote and striking it as editors are not allowed 2 votes at this discussion. A corporate biography of the subject from their own company does not qualify as an Independent Reliable source. Your edits to add this link and a significant portion of Accenture's business info (which the subject works for) does not solve the basic BLP Ref Problem. Like I (and others have said before), the problem is that with all the BLP violations and improper links removed this stub article does not demonstrate enough notability to qualify for a BLP inclusion. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This needs be the last time this article should be nominated, as like the first time this article is unreliable and vague aside from a bizjournals page which doesn't say much about him. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.