Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satesh Singh

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satesh Singh

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

Promotional article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nomination. The subject of the article does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria for notability. Also there are claims in the article which are promotional and not supported by the 2 references that have been included- one is a listing site and the other seems to where he receives a mention by virtue of a couple of comments on a patient special interest group website. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for reasons above. BakerStMD T|C 21:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blp article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources; per Drchriswilliams, current sourcing is not significant coverage, and a search turned up no significant RS coverage of this individual.Dialectric (talk) 15:40, 11 February 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.