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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suril Shah

[edit]

Six years ago, this chap got some Indian press coverage for being the youngest to pass some computing exams. But there's no sources showing any significance beyond those reports, and most of the remainder of this CV article is unverified. Troikoalogo (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suril is quite renown in India and has received considerable media coverage in newspapers and TV News Channels. Many articles have been published about him, especially in his native state. For instance, Gujarat Samachar. One of the reasons for deletion, is cited that the news were six years ago, but last year itself, Suril cleared SAP "Technology Consultant" certification, which is of very high repute in the IT industry - Making it big at a Young Age. The certifications which Suril has achieved are considered very valuable in the IT industry, and generally attempted after graduation and work experience, which he did at quite young age. All his claims have been affirmed by the companies whose certifications he took. Hence it is a notable accomplishment. As for the remainder of the page, all the facts can be cited as local media had published reports of his felicitation functions held by the institutions, but maybe not available on the internet, but can be uploaded.

--Whizsurfer (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Extremely Weak Keep and Stub,~~ may actually do the barely notable thing but, the article is way too much of a C.V. the entire article should be stubbified and written in a properly neutral tone. Each of the "certifications" don't need to be listed. Factually state who he is, what he is notable for, and reference accordingly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the article to the best of my knowledge and citability , and tried to make it 'non-CV' like and maintain neutrality. As for the listing of certifications, I believe as they are records, they should be listed with proper name and age. However, I welcome experienced Wiki editors to help improve this page and adhere to the Wikipedia rules.Whizsurfer (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my mind. The need for a complete overhaul on the article makes me think that it would be better to delete what currently exists and start over. AfD is not cleanup. I recommend reading the notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and Manual of Style as well as the help pages about creating articles. After that create the article in a userspace sandbox and ask a couple of admins to preview it before moving it to article space. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't need to completely overhaul the article, but the current form does seem to have enough information and citations. The only argument is whether we should keep the tabular form of 'certifications'.Whizsurfer (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no that isn't the only argument. Read the stuff I've pointed you to above and you'll begin to grasp some of the problems. His working really hard and or achieving great things, etc and the way it is presented in the article is peacock and/or weaselly and shouldn't be there. It needs grammer and tone reworking. Requires a proper references section with inline citations. I'm not going to get into detail here. The article talkpage maybe but, like I said it needs a lot of work and AfD is not cleanup. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is proper references section and neutral point of view. I understand that AfD is not for cleanup, but was just drawing inspiration from Bonny Hicks AfD nomination :-). I hope now there is proper usage of grammar and neutrality is maintained by mentioning things factually. Still if something seems "weaselly" in there, it would be better if that could be point that out :-). I dont think we need to start from scratch for this article. Whizsurfer (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, as whiz kids attempting computer online exams has become a recent trend, this article would serve as good information for who holds up records for some of the renown online exams, and being a trend-setter. Whizsurfer (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jasynnash2. He may or may not meet WP:BIO, but this article is pretty much unsalvageable. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do understand, the nominated version seems to be written from a fan's point of view. I have made revisions after that, and the current form should satisfy WP:NPOV. As for notability concerns, this seems to be one of the first articles, in the context, so not sure whether WP:BIO would provide 100% reasons, whether to include/exclude such articles, but I am fully convinced that it belongs here :-) It doesn't seem to be a complete misfit here, so my efforts are to improve upon current version, as it might require minimal changes, rather than starting all over again. Whizsurfer (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read a few pages under the Category:1992 births, and probably Suril Shah's notability is comparable with many of the persons under the category. --Bhadani (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 17:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Various newspapers keep writing about him - smells like notability to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references show he meets the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those certifications aren't rocket science, but he is notable for passing them at such a young age, as evidenced by repeated coverage in the media. VG ☎ 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 24 September 2008 (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.