In this article we are going to explore
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadanand Maiya, a topic that has captured the interest of many people in recent times.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadanand Maiya is a source of debate and discussion in today's society, and has an important impact on various aspects of daily life. Throughout this article, we will examine different perspectives and opinions on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadanand Maiya, as well as its relevance to our culture, history, and future. With a critical and reflective look, we will try to shed light on this topic that is so relevant today, offering different approaches and arguments that invite reflection and debate.
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sadanand Maiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable entrepreneur, fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. The first source is a big artcle in Forbes India. And it is "staff". It surely has some quotes of the guy, however, it's not an interview. RS or no RS? Suitskvarts (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'm also wondering about the Forbes India article. Indian sources can be very tricky, there are a lot that are basically paid advertising, but this article doesn't feel like that. For me this looks like one instance of SIGCOV. That isn't really enough; I'd like to see two more. (The other two sources merely prove the books listed actually do exist.) An article that long in Forbes makes me think there ought to be others out there. Unfortunately we've got transliteration issues to deal with. Valereee (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2023 (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.