Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvind Iyer (2nd nomination)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Iyer

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

The article-subject has emailed me stating "I do not wish to be on Wikipedia... and wish to stay private... I live a private life and teach orphaned children..." Typically we have a strong preference to respect the privacy of people that are not public figures and of marginal notability, as is the case here. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also encourages us to errr on the side of deletion when specifically requested by the article-subject. The page has only 5-10 views per day and its value to Wikipedia or our readers is dwarfed by the harm/distress to the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 04:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- To the best of my knowledge,the above information is correct.Low notability.Request for privacy should be respected ( Rajeshbm (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- I work with a site that utilizes the Wikipedia content, and have corresponded with the referenced person for nearly 2 years and understand his desire for privacy. As an interested observer and occasional Wikipedia author, I concur with the request to delete. gbnewby —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, still questionable even with the current article. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason to keep this article over the subjects objections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 14 May 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.