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. JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Raj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Neutral nomination on behalf of proposed deletion-requestor (contested at requests for undeletion). Proposed deletion rationale was "Article does not establish notability of person." Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the biography of an apparently non-notable living person. That said, I'm surprised this didn't go forward as a promotional Speedy Deletion, and I would not object to that - it's essentially a resume. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Because it fails WP:GNG. I unsuccessfully looked for reliable sources to support this person's notability. Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. Jance day (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this is entirely unsourced and is essentially written as a CV rather than an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, although it was still very poorly sourced and deletable, it at least resembled a real encyclopedia article until it was edited to its current format last April by User:Rupert raj, bringing up a conflict of interest issue, shortly before it was originally deleted. Also worth noting that the undeletion requester didn't actually provide a reason for requesting undeletion; rather, their reasoning consisted entirely of the word "reasoning". And I'm saying all this as someone who's met Rupert personally. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (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.