Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangam Kumara Swamy

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. slakr^\ talk / 03:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sangam Kumara Swamy

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

Aside from the promotional tone of the article, the subject does not appear to have received sufficient non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article on Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 06:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

possible Telugu sources

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

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

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD: "Sangam Swamy" "Kumaraswamy"

Let's get article tone corrected and improved through available sources. I can await a Telugu or Hindi-reading Wikipedian to offer input, as judging non-English coverage is always dicey. Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it has some factual material in it, there's really no way to set it in context without a rewrite. So if someone does rewrite it between now and the expiration of this discussion fine, but if not, then it can't be kept here as is. Despite the author's efforts to make it nonpromotional, it is, throughout, a piece that was written to impress. (For anyone who is inclined to rewrite it, you're entitled t but I'd just point out that our guidelines on conflicts of interest state that we strongly discourage, so it seems to me that when someone encourages such behavior by going out of his way to help, it flies in the face of the COI guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no one's taken an interest in working on the article. Searches reveal no notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 7 November 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.