Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashanth Chandrasekar

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. I don't see a consensus to draftify. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanth Chandrasekar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notability can not be inherited. Fails WP:GNG. No indepth and independent coverage in reliable sources that is about him and not the company. If someone can add sources that cover him extensively (not in a Q&A format), things can change. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources at present are not giving significant coverage. All of them are talking about his company and a routine coverage about his appointment as head of company. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also find it strange that it was an AFC accepted article. Does it mean accepted articles can also be so obviously non-notable? Perhaps this is not the right question for this space. But just putting out what's coming to my mind! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nomadicghumakkad It means that reviewers are human and have been known to make errors. I am making no comment on the review nor the reviewer, and none should be read into this. The AFC brief is to accept drafts that the reviewer believes have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. The outcome of this discussion will show whether that belief was correct in this instance. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nomadicghumakkad, thats a good question to ask. While I dont have a clear answer for you, let me tell you one thing. Im also an AFC reviewer. When I have to review some articles where notability can be questioned in future, I only accept those articles which have a greater chance for survival at AFD. I even do a WP:Before from my side to double check whether any other sources are also available. Because I really dont want my genuinity to be questioned by other users. I still wonder why this article was accepted. None of the sources are not giving enough sigcov to the subject from my opinion. Forbes article is actually giving more importance to some other event rather than the subject. Other two are also not enough to establish GNG even if we combine them all. Moreover, this is an article with 5 sentences, which does not give the readers an idea about the subject. Leave the part about notability, but I believe this should have been declined at AFC with atleast giving the reason submission provides insufficient context Pinging the reviwer Dial911 for a clarification from their side. May be Im wrong here. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by "I really don't want my genuinity to be questioned by other users"? Are reviewers who accept an AfC that is later nominated for AfD putting their genuinity at risk by doing that? Coming to the point, this CEO appears to be notable enough. There are numerous independent sources that quote him, verify his actions as a CEO, talk about his past work at a different company. A Google news search will give you plenty of sources. Most importantly, just as you believed "this should have been declined at AfC", I thought it was okay to take it to mainspace where community can decide what to do with it. Hope that clarifies. Dial911 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dial911, Im sorry if my comment made you frustrated. I didnt questioned your genuity at all. I actually meant something else. I should have used some word instead of genuity. Please consider this as a slippery from my mouth. This has happened for me in the past. Like you said, from your own assessment, this passes GNG and from mine, it dont. Leave the rest to community and please ping me on your reply. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. That this was accepted via AFC is very indicative of a more serious problem. Celestina007 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage, an AfC Error CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-draftify: There is sufficient difference of opinion between AFC reviewers opining here to send this back once, but once only Fiddle^{Tim Trent} Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly I do not see much difference of opinion Tim. The majority of votes is to delete. And this AfC Reviewer has over the years a ratio of >55% of accepts which is pretty unusual. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Routine coverage. One of the sources which i have removed is a PR sites, the second links to the company page i think all of which are not reliable. Fails WP:RS. TheChronium (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nomination, lacks WP:SIGCOV defcon5 (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2021 (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.