Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasaraneni Sadasivarao

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. Closed per request in comments. as Speedy Keep (non-admin closure)   // Timothy :: talk  13:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaraneni Sadasivarao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this person fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Even once I cleaned up all the spam, this is a poorly sourced article. Bringing to AfD because I think they may be borderline. He absolutely fails WP:GNG though. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per comments below. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 17:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. Here's my opinion. SNG's are basically more refined guidelines for determining WP:N within a certain area. SNG's make the presumption of notability, which is most often correct, but a presumption assumes something (in this case notability) in the absence of explicit evidence; if someone feels the presumption is not supported by evidence (a lack of WP:RS), the presumption can be called into question for discussion. ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". Ultimately I believe it all comes down to whether there is a consensus that there are likely multiple WP:RS that are verifiable and independent of the subject that addresses the subject directly and in detail and that the subject not be excluded by WP:WWIN. It's my opinion, but I hope this helps.   // Timothy :: talk  07:57, 8 August 2020 (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.