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. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saket Suman (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, no coverage in sources other than his own published articles. Possible WP:COI, repeatedly recreated. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication this meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete. Meets the guidelines, noted personality WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. Why is this article here? The page seems to be genuine, a simple google search brings forth several valid references. Sources ranging from New York Times to The Dawn and other leading newspapers affirm the aforementioned. Valid references A journalist writes articles about important issues and his bylines are the affirmation of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.200.243 (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — 122.177.200.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The article meets all the necessary guidelines WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:JOURNALIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny Rhoods (talk • contribs) 09:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — Johny Rhoods (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment Given the behavior of the article creator (and their IP socks), I recommend to salt the article after deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that "salt" proposal. However, are you sure his/her strategy to sway this AfD (with socks) isn't working? :>) --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - no RS found to demonstrate notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete zero coverage in RS as far as I can ascertain. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and salt fails N, under promotional pressure. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Creator of the page blanked the contents of the article (not including the template) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have undone that. Better to let the AfD run its course. I'm sure this will be recreated soon after it gets deleted and this way we can then speedy it as G4. If we G7 it now, we cannot really salt it either. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I cannot find any evidence of notability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not covered in reliable sources WP:RS and therefore does not meet notability standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Aust331 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 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.