Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharath Sury (2nd nomination)

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. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharath Sury

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

Non-notable vanity bio. Undocumented bold claims. Runarb (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AFD is now properly templated. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claims appear documented by 3rd party citations.. Lfullmar (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Lfullmar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Certainly looks like an advertisement promoting the subject. Investment publications do the same for fund managers. Portfolio management is, in any case, not an exact science and anything to do with investment, as fund managers and conscientious financial advisors keep reiterating to their clients and potential clients, carries risks and rewards. He may have commented on what other notable people in the field (mentioned in the article) have said to back his statements and/or writings (name-dropping), but that does not, in itself, make him notable, even if Bloomberg has given him the time and space to say what he says. Bloomberg, CNN, the BBC and other similar channels give a lot of people in the world of finance, be they lecturers, professors or ordinary investors, the opportunity to voice their opinions on a variety of financial issues of the day. It does not make them or this man notable either. Here today, gone tomorrow! Bloomberg producers are just doing their job, he is doing his, and he is still only a lecturer in San Diego, leaving aside his incidental work elsewhere. So, still some way to go before he becomes a full-fledged professor, which would indicate some sort of recognition from his own peers and superiors in academia. I think he does not meet WP:GNG at present. I note, too, the timing and similarity in the comments on the talk page and also the similarity in the signature styles of this article's supporters on that page and on this AfD page!- Zananiri (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go Zani! I too agree with Zanianiri that all investment advisors are lame! As he says, portfolio management is not a science and doubtful that there are even Nobel Laureates in economics. As before, will support and assist in deleting other economists. Concur. - tdtd09 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — tdtd09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.