Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Mohan (engineer)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Mohan (engineer)

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No claim to notability made. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and doesn't attempt to claim Notability--Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spoke with the editor who submitted this article, and pretty much everyone in the help channel was confused as to why this was moved from the Draft namespace at all. I propose moving it back instead of deleting, as a potential mistake by the reviewer (ping SwisterTwister) --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Moving back to draft space would not make the subject notable. We have to eventually face it at afd, if not now, some time later when it comes back to mainspace. Subject neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:PROF and there is no hope for him unless he grabs some honorary chair or turns out to be a serial killer.

But I must say, this is not an ideal ending for an AFC draft. It should better have been declined with notability cause. Now the anonymous editor has a lot to take in; first they accept it, then delete it. What a mess! Anup [Talk] 06:12, 13 September 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.