Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senthilmani Mayooran

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senthilmani Mayooran

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

Failed to assert notability as per WP:ANYBIO - mentioned that the subject concerned won an award but failed to provide any reference nor any details suggesting that the award is notable. - Andrew Y _talk 10:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced BLP. Subject wrote one book, and tries to promote it. Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have been WP:BLPPRODded, instead of going to AfD. Kraxler (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has been done now.— Andrew Y _talk 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not yet qualify for BLP prod deletion at this time because only two days have passed since it was added. As such, relisting the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be self-promotion without any suggestion or proof of notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.--Rpclod (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure why it wouldn't qualify for a speedy delete, as there aren't any real claims for notability made, but, since we're here, this is a clear delete for failing notability and (self)-promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spammy on top of all other issues mentioned here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (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.