Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramanujam ganesh
- 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 --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ramanujam ganesh (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)
PROD removed by page creator, no indication of notability. Laber□T 14:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Most of the article's content is unsourced and clearly promotional. The only two sources in the article are the subject's personal Facebook profile and an article in The Hindu that merely lists his name and nothing more. I couldn't find any other reliable sources through a Google search. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: A WP:SPA article on a political candidate, featuring non-encyclopaedic uncited WP:PEACOCKery. My searches are finding nothing better than the subject's appearance on a list of candidates, which does not meet the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, and no evidence of wider biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No indication of notability stated in the article, and a Google search didn't reveal any notability either. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Made by a WP:SPA, to me would be a CSD per WP:G11 crh23 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing at all convincing, clearly a case of deletion material. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.