Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rathnam (3rd 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. WP:SALTed too. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rathnam

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

self promotion, nominated for 3rdtime deletion--R.srinivaas (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom and suggest any passing admin check for possibly passing G4. Thanks, Ansh666 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, on the basis it's been the subject of at least two AfD's (and the first AfD suggests it was deleted three times before that). I can't see anything in the new article to suggest anything of note has happened since the last AfD. The article seems to be there to promote his forthcoming ventures. Suggest the title is WP:SALT'd too. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. It doesn't qualify for G4. While the content is similar, the actual prose isn't similar, the author isn't the same, and it includes substantially more sources. The odd thing is, the title was salted indefinitely in 2012, and yet it managed to be recreated anyway. The article should have been created at AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT FOREVER! I wanna know why this article has been allowed to be created multiple times after it has been already salted 3 times and deleted 8 times, see here JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt as nothing but promotional bollox that serves absolutely no purpose here!. Since it's been AFD'd and CSD'd constantly I think Salting may be a wiser choice here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete & Salt per nom and others. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request your attention to some articles related to this article, they also seem not noteworthy Vincent Therraisnathan and S.V.S.Rathinam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:420:5502:1370:39BD:3173:4924:6C5 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Should obviously not have been re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On exactly what basis are these "delete and salt" !votes being made? We don't delete based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the fact that this article has existed in the past, in a different form with less sources, is not a valid deletion rationale. Has anyone bothered to examine the sources? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your last question - Yes. Even you (above) agree the article is the same in content as the previous ones. Where are the significant, independent, reliable news sources, or the achievements that have happened since 2012 that would change his notability? Sionk (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2014 (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.