Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Saxena (2nd 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Saxena

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

When I first found this article the subject appeared to be notable. The more I've looked into it though, the less this seems to be the case. An AFD in 2007 ended in delete and this is the only source that I could find on google news and factiva where he is the subject. He has received many mentions in the media because he is a manager of IBM's Watson computer but brief mentions are not sufficient to meet the 'in depth' requirement of the general notability guideline. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I proposed this for speedy deletion as G11 last week. Since that went through, I did not draw attention to the obvious COI issue here. I've now done so, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Manoj Saxena. If we are to have an article on this person (which I'm far from convinced that we should) then let's have one created through normal Wikipedia process, by an unconnected editor who believes that the man is notable, and not this promotional COI mess. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: major memory lapse here. I didn't mention the COI, but someone else did, now at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 67#Manoj Saxena. Sorry about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original version of this article, deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Saxena, was very short, and gave very little indication of notability. The re-created version of the article on the face of it seemed to do a better job of making its subject look notable, but, as Smartse has said above, closer examination shows that the apparent indications of notability were superficial. Sources that have been cited (including both sources currently in the article and those that have been removed) have included the following: talks given by Saxena, not about him; an announcement that IBM had bought up a company, with a brief mention that Saxena was its chairman, and would continue as manager; a report that Saxena, an IBM employee, had given a talk to other IBM employees, telling them why he was working for IBM; a patent filing which merely gives Saxena's name in a list of those responsible for developing the subject of the patent; a substantially promotional page about him on the web site of "Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership", which shows every sign of existing for the purpose of promotion of business people; at least two pages that don't even mention Saxena; etc etc... nothing at all that could be regarded as substantial coverage in reliable independent sources.

(Note:The article is substantially due to two single-purpose accounts that have contributed nothing unrelated to Saxena. It was previously full of glowing promotional content. It was tagged for speedy deletion as promotion, and I speedily deleted it. I restored and userfied it on request, and it has now had the blatantly promotional content removed. However, it is clear that it exists essentially for promotional purposes.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability in sources Canadiancow1 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of in depth biographical coverage of the subject, and the somewhat promotional tone of the article. Gigs (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete The in depth biographical content was asked to be edited as it was deemed promotional. Additional edits have been made to add bio and removed content that seemed promotional. Thank you for your re-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halenorma (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 November 2013‎

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.