Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Krishnan

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Krishnan

Rajesh Krishnan (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)

No sources/references, written like an advert FASTILY 07:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best because my searches found nothing better and the current article is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The number of awards received by this individual demonstrate notability. I cannot imagine an American being nominated in similar circumstances. Has received coverage in the English language press in India. Searches need to be conducted in other Indian languages as well. AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the above comment, and the many RS presented, his multiplicity of awards, I think he passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC upon a review of available sources from the custom search above. Some, but not all, are shorter articles, however, WP:BASIC states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and some of the coverage in the shorter articles is beyond trivial. The article would benefit from copy editing to consolidate information, to format long lists, and to add more sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 21 March 2016 (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.