Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandar Agashe (2nd nomination)

Mandar Agashe

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Procedural listing per close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 2. No opinion from me. Daniel (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. It does seem to have the hallmarks of paid editing. Deb (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (tentative vote). A laundry list of sources have been provided in the DRV linked by Daniel. @SmokeyJoe: checked a few of them and found them passing mentions and/or not indepedent. I've independently clicked on about 5 sources there or in the article itself and felt the same. It's possible there's wheat among the chaff or other better sources available, but someone will need to make a WP:THREE argument if that's the case. Martinp (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete for reasons enunciated by Martinp. I would agree that a source analysis showing specific support for notability is needed in this case. BD2412 T 03:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the user who queried at the deletion review of this article. And as per my discussion with Martinp, i have been encouraged to participate in this discussion. I believe these can be used as good sources:

There are also google book sources I found and added to the article that seem to be book versions of some magazines:

We also discussed these sources, but Martinp said they are significant coverage but may not be independent:

I am not well versed with all of Wikipedia's policies as a casual reader and editor, but I think the WP:THREE rule is met. :2405:201:1006:E03A:DC9C:8154:FAE9:3D2C (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2405... I've indented your list so it better fits the format above (no worries, formatting here is arcane, and we appreciate your substantive contribution to the discussion.). 2405... came to my talk page to present these sources in response to my tentative delete !vote above, and I encouraged him to participate here instead. As 2405... writes, I took a look at their first attempt at WP:THREE and found some of the sources were probably not sufficiently independent. I haven't reviewed the updated list and won't have time to do so for several days at least. Martinp (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]