Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R Venugopal

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. Can be redirected if desired, once he is mentioned in the target article. Sandstein 08:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R Venugopal edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I was surprised this didn't have a notability tag after looking through the sources, only to see notability tags have been removed twice. Looking through the sources in the article, I don't think he passes WP:GNG. Possibly promotional considering the image is an "own work." SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece. none of the citations included are about him, rather just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the available references which are from reliable resources, i think the subject passes WP:BASIC. GermanKity (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have to be more than reliable in order to justify a keep !vote - which sources do you think show significant coverage? SportingFlyer T·C 09:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanKity: So you are implying this (which is obviously the work of somebody related to the article's subject) meets WP:BASIC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harsh Goenka does not. You claim that the references in Harsh Goenka's article are paid, but are not averse to keeping an article which is most probably a paid work. Jupitus Smart 16:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say whether the creator is connected with subject or not here. But it has Significant references that are from reliable resources. GermanKity (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation. Most of the references just mention his position in relation to the organisation he works and quote him, they don't discuss him or his work. I couldn't anything different through google search. The only one which gives some independent commentary of him is this one which I don't think is sufficient on its own. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:34, 28 June 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.