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. The arguments for keeping are both the majority position and better argued. Michig (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Ramaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Queried speedy delete as advertisement Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The page needs heavy copy editing to make it according to Wikipedia standards however person was very notable. Mr RD 17:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Endorse the argument above by @Mr RD:. AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draft at best because this is still noticeably unsourced and would need better improvements, none of which I see happening. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. This has clearly not been written on the basis of what reliable sources say about the subject and would need a complete rewrite to become compliant with our sourcing and verifiability policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the nominator for deletion of this article stated for their doing so was speedy delete as advertisement, I’m not sure where to begin other than stating the fact that this articles subject has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. And without this deletion nomination pointing exactly towards what material is being challenged, or likely to be challenged,, again, it’s hard to know where to start for an article that has existed for 7 years and now finds itself here.. Anyway, I’ve rewritten the lead for this article adding references (and added the reference section to contain them) and believe that it should be remembered by everyone that the bar for providing actual citations for deceased people is lower than that required for those who are living. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This articles subject has been linked to the Oregon State University and List of Indian entrepreneurs articles. Picomtn (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Hi @Omni Flames:@Anthony Appleyard:@AusLondonder:@Sportsfan 1234:@David Eppstein: (cc @Titodutta:@MichaelQSchmidt:@Checkingfax:) Please note that there are unique issues dealing with this articles subject matter that that is referenced in Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs that should be a part of this discussion. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And through WP:INDAFD: M. S. Ramaiah Dr. M. S. Ramaiah

• Keep and encourage imrovements through regular editing. I find the wide and in-depth coverage of this man and his works meets WP:N and WP:BIO, and as he passed in 1997, it is not a BLP issue, just one for editorial attention, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I agree with the views of Mr RD and MichaelQSchmidt, but the article will need a lot of work to change the highly positive (and nearly promotional) tone to a neutral view on the subject. A heads up, Earwig's copyvio detector detected close paraphrasing to this site [1]; this content seems to have been added by Webmaster.cg, and might be a major copyvio. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That phrasing has been here since 2013 and the spammy blog link is dated 2015. So I think the copying went the other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Exactly what Schmidt has said. Passes GNG, I think. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2016 (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.