Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Jain

: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. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

=[[Rajesh Jain]]=

:{{la|Rajesh Jain}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rajesh_Jain Stats])

:({{Find sources|Rajesh Jain}})

Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability. Chutznik (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::Delete - does non pass WP:BIO and WP:RS. In fact there are no sources available on person. Speedy delete article. Jethwarp (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

::Delete as an unreferenced WP:BLP –TC N7 JM 02:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

::Delete - unreferenced, makes no assertion of notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

::Delete as an unreferenced BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. ~~A PROD would have sufficed, IMO.~~ dci | TALK 17:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I thought so too, but it looks like a prod was contested [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Jain&diff=112755822&oldid=112119407 here]. the edit summary makes the claim that Jain was "one of the few entrepreneur who inspired internet based businesses in India", which might be significant, I guess, but this hasn't been added to the article and is unsourced. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

::::My apologies; I was a tad hasty with that statement, although the contest statement isn't a particularly compelling rationale, particularly in the absence of sources. Thanks for taking the time to procure the info. dci | TALK 03:16, 5 March 2013 (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.