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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Chandrasekaran[edit]

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

PROD contested by WP:SPA anon … fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP … pure vanispamcruftisement for the subject and their NN company. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I put up the initial PROD. I see sources about the companies this person has been involved with and unreliable sources like IMDB, but not nearly enough significant coverage in reliable sources, especially for a BLP. Steven Walling 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added these sources to the article.

They are enough to establish notability. Silver seren^C 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree. Like the other sources that were there previously, these are all one-sentence mentions or quotations by the subject. There is basically no substantive content about the person in those articles, and they're first, not "substantial coverage" like the guideline describes, and also useless for verifying details about him (other than the already obvious, like his place of work). If all it took was being quoted in a paper or magazine a few times to be notable, then even I'd meet WP:BIO. Steven Walling 22:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree … a long list of trivial references is not the same as "substantial coverage" … if you Google search all the instances of my name, you would have an even longer list, with assertions (and WP:RS links to WP:Verify them) that I was "the first to do" some rather impressive things, but I don't presume to meet the WP:BLP requirements … the criteria is quality, not quantity, and a collection of random quotes does not cut it. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two comments directly above compellingly demonstrate that the coverage presented about the subject does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. The general notability guideline should be upheld here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is substantive. Being a World Economic Forum YGL I think makes this substantive. The new links do a pretty good job of validating and referencing the assertions. I am confused because it seems like the initial concern was not enough references which has been addressed by the additions. Now is there a different concern?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.3.180.4 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — 199.3.180.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.