Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Sen (business person)
- 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. Sandstein 08:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Anand Sen (business person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article did not meet the notability guideline for biographies. . Shlok talk . 06:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources and evidence of meeting inclusion criteria. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Tata are "quite large", to say the least. Mr Sen has a very senior role within Tata. Anything else is cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is a WP:BLP. Sourcing is a matter of urgency, not one-day-someone-might-clean-this-up. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between "Is Mr Sen a <foo>" and "Mr Sen is a <foo>, but does that make him notable?". Our problems in this AfD are almost all of the second form. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Up to a point, Lord Copper. If he is notable then there will be non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No such sources are included in the article. I did, incidentally, check Highbeam, but there are only namechecks. I will admit that my circle of acquaintances does not encompass companies this big, but I know one former Fortune 500 CEO who made the cover of Time, which counts, and I know others of similar seniority who have no coverage in RS at all. I also know one who is quite a bit further down the tree but has non-trivial coverage due to his hobby. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- LinkedIn for Fortune 500s, http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=23335673&ticker=874170 It's not hard to find more. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Up to a point, Lord Copper. If he is notable then there will be non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No such sources are included in the article. I did, incidentally, check Highbeam, but there are only namechecks. I will admit that my circle of acquaintances does not encompass companies this big, but I know one former Fortune 500 CEO who made the cover of Time, which counts, and I know others of similar seniority who have no coverage in RS at all. I also know one who is quite a bit further down the tree but has non-trivial coverage due to his hobby. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between "Is Mr Sen a <foo>" and "Mr Sen is a <foo>, but does that make him notable?". Our problems in this AfD are almost all of the second form. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is a WP:BLP. Sourcing is a matter of urgency, not one-day-someone-might-clean-this-up. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - There's no "B" in this BLP. We can vouch for his position, but per WP:CORP he's not necessarily notable for it, and he doesn't inherit from Tata Steel. The sources are also not independent - having a Bloomberg Stock listing isn't proof of notability; it's a management reporting requirement sourced from the company's filings. Nothing else in there is biographically useful. I'm also skeptical of the Indian Institute of Metals medal meeting criteria in this case - the IIM article states that it rents its office space from Tata Steel, and doesn't mention the medal at all. So I question the independence of the award with on other justification, and I question the notability of the award when it's not mentioned. His "so many papers" linked from that other guy's page amount to exactly one co-authorship on a peer-reviewed journal. The other sourced are from Tata, so they aren't independent and only speak to existence. Show me something arm's-length, and that's a different story, but I'm not seeing it so far in my searches. MSJapan (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely nothing is verifiable by reliable sources. The sources are not even wrong -- one links to a different person, possibly a mentor. Even if this could be made into an article, it needs to be destroyed and started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BLP. — CutestPenguinHangout 09:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.