Deletion of Supreeth Shankarghal

Comment: per Guliolopez. Simply doesn't meet notability standards. Most coverage is passing references and not SIGCOV. Given the promotional nature of the article I'd recommend ing it even if he was notable. Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per nom. Following a  exercise, the only sources that I can find are of the "subject was quoted as saying X in the news" variety (many of which are linked/referenced in the article). Rather than where the subject is, himself, the topic of news. This type of thing (where, for example, a company executive is quoted or mentioned in pieces of news about his company or area) doesn't meet the  and  requirement. I can find no significant coverage of this type (where the subject himself has been covered substantively in the news, or a book, or a journal, or an academic study of similar). Otherwise, the article seems to be trying to establish notability by associating the subject with companies (or high value hedge funds) as a way of bolstering notability. (Like the stuff in the lead which seems to say "he is a partner in company X, which is an important company and hence he is important". Which falls into a  trap). The , , and  overtones are also concerning. (Including the resumé style stuff down the end about his personal interests and hobbies. Which are very "CV like" in tone...). Anyway, mine is a "delete" recommendation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:INHERITORG||WP:COI||WP:SPA||WP:NOTLINKEDIN)

Comment: Per nom. I don't know about possible sock connections but when I see new |SPA accounts showing up specifically to !vote it definitely waves Red flag (idiom)|red flags
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)