Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Chadha

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. No argument or evidence advanced toward notability j⚛e decker ^talk 01:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chadha[edit]

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

Another article written by a PR Agency with little substance. Chadha has been interviewed for two FT pull-out supplements, has allegedly received a minor award from a Business Forum and co-authored a non-notable book. His academic work is cited to... his academic work. I have a strong feeling this article is all 'smoke and mirrors'. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The academic work is not notable and the book isn't even on Worldcat DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified as above. The academic is not even close to meeting the notability requirements for inclusion. Kabirat (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not enough indication that the award bestowed upon this person was notable to meet WP:ANYBIO's award criteria. A lot of primary sources in the article. Mkdw ^talk 00:40, 15 April 2013 (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.