Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhakar tomar
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 of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Head of action committees of nn organisation, recipient of nn award, director of nn company. Fails Geogre's Law. Verified only by nn speaking engagements. -- Perfecto 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. --Perfecto 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, vanity. Catamorphism 08:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity is not a speedy deletion criteria. Please read WP:CSD, then read it again, backwards. Then forget about what you read when you read it backwards, because it's forwards that matters, and read it properly another two or three times. Then come back and tell me exactly where it says that vanity is a CSD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about defending some article that actually deserves it, instead of some dumb schmoe's biography? There's sticking to the rules, and then there's playing by procedure merely for the sake of being a pompous ass. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 08:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's apparently an authority on trade, recipient of an international agricultural award, and director of a group of corporations. That's a far cry from "my name is pete and im in the 5th grade and my teacher says im smart". This is not a case of speedy deleting for the thrill of being able to shoot on sight. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I agree with MarkGallagher. It took me a while to verify what the bio said. A part of me even expects someone here to post irrefutable evidence of notability -- which may still happen! Mark, though, was uncivil. --Perfecto 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- True. I might have seen a dozen people incorrectly thinking that vanity is a speedy deletion criterion, but the user who says it is isn't responsible for the other eleven or so. I was getting a bit frustrated, and there's no place for that here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about defending some article that actually deserves it, instead of some dumb schmoe's biography? There's sticking to the rules, and then there's playing by procedure merely for the sake of being a pompous ass. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 08:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity is not a speedy deletion criteria. Please read WP:CSD, then read it again, backwards. Then forget about what you read when you read it backwards, because it's forwards that matters, and read it properly another two or three times. Then come back and tell me exactly where it says that vanity is a CSD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete bio of a non-notable person.--Isotope23 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:58, 31 January 2006 (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.