Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samir Palnitkar

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Palnitkar[edit]

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

This biography is not notable and the main source, aside from a couple of web news articles during the dot-com era is a LinkedIn profile. Wikipedia does not synthesize information per policy and is not a place to advertise. NCMECK345 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I support delete based on nomination. JCP2017 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)~~ (Obvious sock blocked and !vote struck. Please note I have also blocked the proposer for socking for 1 week, and as I have taken admin action I cannot now comment on the deletion discussion itself. I'll leave it to any reviewer to decide whether to extend the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. I do not see the linked in profile being used as the principle source here, and as notability is not temporary I see no problem with most sources being contemporary to his period of peak prominence (if they all are, I haven't checked the date of all of them). I debated speedily closing this nomination based on the nominator being blocked, but decided on balance that it was probably worth having the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, surprisingly. I was expecting to !vote "Keep" here, but as I look at it, I really don't see any sources that are really about the subject. We have the subject's own linkedin profile, mentioned above and cited twice; some sources like this EE Times article that mention an associated company, but don't mention the subject at all; a press release which is the same, and is just a press release on top of that; some directory-like entries such as this list of investors in one of his companies; a web forum post (WP:SELFPUBLISH); and other non-WP:RS sources. Some sources, like this one, at least mention the subject, but in very little depth; almost in passing. My own independent search really doesn't find much about the subject of the article, either. TJRC (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability criteria; lacking in in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Citobun (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While I think sources might show up on his business career, and he is an author (I do know Verilog, but I don't recall this book in particular - but I'm not an expert on Verilog).... The sources aren't there, and a quick google and book search doesn't bring up much.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2017 (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.