Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchir Sharma

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 consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchir Sharma[edit]

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

contested prod. the article is basically pundit spam, low on biographical detail. few biography sources upon gsearch. created and maintained by spa Ohc ^¡digame! 01:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created in accordance with Wikipedia policy and every reference is properly sourced. Article subject is a notable author. Article has existed for two years without incident and has been open to user debate. All relevant issues with article have been corrected. User:Ohconfucius| obviously has some personal view or vendetta or otherwise illegitimate motive against this individual and is entitled to their opinion however the article has been created and maintained within Wikipedia guidelines and the opposing users use of sophisticated verbiage is meant to confuse other users and be condescending. Article has existed for over two years and users have had ample opportunity to voice their concerns. [[User:Zj007ny Ohc ]][[User talk:Zj007ny^¡digame!]] 04:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zj007ny (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be mush appreciated if you would refrain from the personal attacks and address the concerns that the article appears to be promotion for the subject's book and only minimally biographical, and that you are not in fact the single purpose account writing this vanity article that you seem to be. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book is two years old, how does this appear to be promotional? All biographic references are sourced and the individual is heavily searched on the web. You would be doing a disservice to the community to remove this article. Furthermore, your accusation of a personal attack is unwarranted. With regards to the accusation of being a single purpose account, while I am not a heavy contributor because of my work and school schedule, I have contributed to multiple articles on a wide range of topics. I would like to add that I created this article as a project for school and as such take great pride in it--I do not stand to gain anything from promoting a two year old book, I just have an interest in Emerging Markets and find the author to be well known and knowledgeable in the field and he is a best selling author. That being said, he was missing from Wikipedia. Instead of suggesting the article for deletion, why not improve it or give me better guidance on how to do so. Suggesting the article for deletion only suggests you have something against this individual. --Zj007ny (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Relist Comment, can we please try to move past trying to judge the intentions of other editors and accusations of bad faith, and get back to discussing the topic at hand? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: article needs work, but there appears to be sufficient reliable sources cited to meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
so is the consensus to keep? Can we proceed to close this and remove the tag for deletion?--Zj007ny (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The decision on closing an AfD discussion is taken by an uninvolved administrator, who will review all the arguments and views put forward in the discussion and come to a conclusion. This is normally done after 7 days, but can be later if a discussion was re-listed, as in this case. You can't close this or remove the deletion debate tag, and I can't close this or remove the deletion debate tag. That will be done by the uninvolved administrator. See WP:CLOSEAFD for more details. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! --Zj007ny (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 6 October 2014 (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.