Deletion of Divya S. Iyer

Comment: Basically my entire argument can be found Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1100#Need_a_help|within this Teahouse discussion, where I discuss and link to sources I found while performing very rudimentary . I encourage anyone participating in this discussion as well as the reviewing administrator to look at some of the sources there and read my full argument. I not only believe that the article's subject exceeds the standards laid out by the , but also that, unlike in {{u|DoubleGrazing}}'s vote, there's no issue with the claim of noteworthiness. The nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG)

Comment: u|Kolma8}}, you must show here what exactly you found on doing efore and should explain, how does it satisfy sigcov and GNG. Just caiming that you have found some sources is not a proper way to participate in an AFD. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: the ''weakest'' of weak keeps, that is. There are enough reliable sources, with sufficient coverage, to establish , even if (an in this respect I do agree with the nom) there doesn't appear to be much claim of noteworthiness. An example of where technical notability supersedes IRL one, and an article may end up surviving that really shouldn't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I found enough on my  to pass GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)