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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Malodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The sources do not provide sufficient significance to justify an independent article. News articles emphasize "concise promotional" content. While the article weakly meets WP:BIO standards, it falls short of meeting WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 11:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He very obviously does not pass WP:PROF; the question is whether the in-depth sources about him are independent enough and reliable enough to pass WP:GNG. Indian news sources are rife with paid promotion per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and I suspect that some or most of the sources here have that issue. The first two (Patrika and News18) are obviously both taken from the same press release, so do not count as independent of each other and maybe not reliable and independent of the subject. India Today is specifically warned about in WP:RSP and our article has no depth of content about the subject. That leaves only the Free Press Journal, about which I know nothing, but whose writing appears more hagiographic than factual or informative. I don't find any of these convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2024 (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.