Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhu Guptara

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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhu Guptara[edit]

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

No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. The subject appears to have a successful career as a business consultant, but his most notable appointment appears to be as a board member of a UBS subsidiary. The main editors of the article are the WP:SPAs Weinfelden (talk · contribs) and 83.189.162.226 (talk · contribs), so it appears autobiographical. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also nominated the rest of the articles about his family at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guptara. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any non-trivial mentions in independent, third-party sources. Most of the references are dead links, most of the Google search results are either Wikipedia mirrors or non-independent. utcursch | talk 02:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've yet to see reliable sources commenting on him. Vinay089 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article never actually lists any easily comprehensible information to suggest basic and minimal acceptance of notability, there's simply nothing here convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 27 May 2016 (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.