Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anadish Pal (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Michig (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anadish Pal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article was kept in 2007 on the basis of the references, but they all are the usual sort of PR or mentions. He has accomplished nothing appropriate for covering in an encyclopedia . The entire article is a list of unsuccessful inventions--and unsourced claims for a few which may have been accepted. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs improvement. The article's subject meets basic notability by virtue of the sources cited in the article. The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Telegraph, and Gulf News seem like they should qualify as "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and the pieces don't look like PR fluff to me. Regardless of whether the subject has actually accomplished anything or not, he has attracted sufficient attention from reliable sources to meet notability requirements. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources certainly seem to be reliable, independent as well as meeting Sig Cov - I wouldn't say they were mentions. GNG wouldn't specifically require success of his inventions to be included. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2018 (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.