Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.R.Mahendran

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.R.Mahendran

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

So the subject received press coverage in The Hindu but other than this, lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Therefore the subject does not appear to meet GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There's more coverage than the one article noted by nom from The Hindu. There are these two, also from The Hindu: [1], [2]. There's also this, which doesn't seem to be online:
Inter-crop model may cushion impact of vanilla price swings Economic Times, The (Mumbai, India) - September 7, 2004

Thus meets GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK none of the coverage discuss the subject directly and in-depth. --Saqib (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just made up the "in-depth" part. WP:GNG requires that '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' That means that Sig Cov has statements that are directly about the subject. It also means that the criterion is solely based on whether the RS can be used to establish facts about the subject. These can. Furthermore, as GNG reminds us, " it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Contra your misleading claim, there is no requirement that Sig Cov discuss subject in-depth and all three of these sources discuss subject in detail so that no OR is needed to extract content and the fact that the subject is not the main topic of the RS is, explicitly per GNG, irrelevant. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that you don't think the provided sources meet the criterion for establishing notability, but no one here is talking about sources to support claims within an article except for you. You said they need to be "in-depth." I quoted GNG to prove that in fact, sources to establish notability DO NOT have to be "in-depth." They have to be "in detail." It's a very different thing, and our AfD process is not well-served by you materially altering the requirements of the notability criterion in your comments. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage in the form of a news-stories is hardly encyclopedically notable, given it's abundance, now-a-days, and is not enough to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the form of the article name shouts that this is probably a problematic promotional article. The sourcing is clearly not enough for GNG, but even if it was this article would still suffer from acting as a promotionalist platform. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to advertise their specific organic farming endevors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable and almost totally promotional DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 21 April 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.