Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapsiru Dainkeh

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

:({{Find sources|Tapsiru Dainkeh}})

Non-notable person in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. The user appears to have a conflict of interest and article has already been deleted under A7 twice. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just not notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Expanded. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. No adequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
• Delete and salt. I think WP:GNG is the more appropriate notability criterion for the subject's career trajectory than WP:PROF, despite this being listed as an academic deletion case. I found a handful of news stories quoting him, but none with the non-trivial depth of coverage required by GNG. Given the article history, protection against recreation looks like a good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 7 February 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.