"

Your reverts of the Ankit Fadia article state that you're ""removing material not supported by sources or cited to unreliable sources"" So with that, there are 1741 mentions of Chennai Online, do you plan on deleting those passages in Wikipedia articles
mentioning Chennai Online as a source?

Granted there are one mention of Wendy McAuliffe and its in the Ankit Fadia article but there are 35,700 results for ""Wendy McAuliffe"" ZDNet in Google, and at her current venture about page http://www.populatedigital.com/people/ mentions ""Wendy began her career as a journalist for ZDNet, the UK’s leading online technology newswire, during which time she became a leading authority in online privacy and child protection online."" so that's another unreliable sources?!?

Surely an article about Ankit Fadia by Suelette Dreyfus is a reliable source, but you nixed that too.

You point to the notability page and revert the page, and I see in that document that Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, the way that article is after you revert the page, it turns into a promotional medium for Ankit Fadia, without the other articles supporting that Ankit Fadia is a phony, then have the issue of unclear notability to which having an article about Ankit Fadia. If notability requires verifiable evidence, how many mainstream and researched articles pointing out are needed to point out that Ankit Fadia is a verifiable phony? 

I can't take these donation drives for Wikipedia seriously if the basis for articles on Wikipedia are given to people with no grasp of their field, and hardcore plagiarism of other people's work without and accepting them as your own original work.
The research is there, maybe I'm not the editor for putting this together, but either Wikipedia should delete the article or stop sugar coating this article as a one sided promotional medium for Ankit Fadia.

  "