Sopnendu Mohanty

Sopnendu Mohanty (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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions, profiles, and routine run-of-the-mill coverage of IT professional. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How a person who serves as advisor on fintech related issues for the National University of Singapore, International Monetary Fund, Mojaloop Foundation and the Indian State Government of Odisha can be considered with a routine (run-of-the-mill coverage of) IT professional?Eesan1969 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eesan1969 when many of the sources in the article are tangential to him as a person; lacking in depth coverage of him; are press releases; or unreliable (i.e. WP:FORBESCON). – robertsky (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky, a few might be press releases but many are reputed international media.Eesan1969 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eesan1969 but not of in depth coverage of him, not of the organisations or the events. – robertsky (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eesan1969: When I looked at the first block of 8 references there was nothing there, nothing that was signifcant, independent and in-depth. Then I did a WP:BEFORE search on the man. It was a similar kind of stuff. We can go through the references if you want at some point. scope_creep^Talk 16:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But when I search under the following categories, still he looks to me notable.

Books, Scholar, WP refs (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).Eesan1969 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Complies with wp:GNG. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: most of the sources are: lacking in-depth coverage of the subject; press releases; or unreliable. – robertsky (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:Based on Books, Scholar, WP refs (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), he is fairly notable. This news coverage makes him notable in the region since The Times of India is the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world.Eesan1969 (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I contributed this article at AfC, but it's accepted by @Félix An:.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Closing Admin

There are a number of petitions[1], [2] against this subject, that can't influence to judge his notability.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eesan1969 this would not have been, and should not be a factor anyway in the deletion discussion. – robertsky (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the AfC acceptance, it is a prediction of whether the article can survive a AfD discussion. It is not a shield from AfD. – robertsky (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this article was accepted on September 4, 2021 only by a neutral editor @Félix An: at AfC.....why in a hurry for deletion?Eesan1969 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable, if this person could have its own Wikipedia article, then so does my IT colleague that I know personally. Most sources in the article are not even focused on the person, lacking significant coverage, but merely a passing mention. 175.116.2.149 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]