118:
him. It uses those sources to in such a way to make Arora appear impressive. Rather than talk about what VH1 said about him, it says, essentially, "he's so important that he has been covered in VH1." It has so many problems, and my suspicion is that once those problems are worked through, we will be left with a person who has not yet done anything of such significance that he should have a WP article. Also, I think something like one or no mainspace articles link to this one, and the article has basically no editing activity. Whoever was interested in making this page wanted to write up something that made him look like a million bucks, but in the years since, nobody else has seemed to care. One would think that some other articles would link to this person if he was notable, or that other editors would have changes to make if they did.
250:
I'm really not impressed with those sources. My suspicion, as I said, is that once the article is cleaned up, it will have nothing to say. In my mind, being the subject of a couple of fluff pieces does not notability make. I think a good analogy would be an article on a high school athlete. Lots of
117:
This is self-promotion. It's cleverly done, and it cites some impressive sources, but it remains self-promotion. This article abuses its sources, of which many do not mention this person by name, to make him appear notable. This article does not report on what third party sources have said about
176:
That is correct. I conceded my request to have the page not deleted, thus the AfD is not needed and I reverted the page back to the original deletion notice so it can be deleted. I figured this made more sense so I reverted it back again, let me know/change if you
251:
local papers, which would universally be considered reliable sources, do profiles on high school athletes. I don't think that a couple of those articles would establish notability if the person's actual accomplishments are not in themselves notable.
309:- All the sources listed are not sources for this person. This seems like it was, as noted by the original nominator, specifically done like this to fool use into letting the article stay, further reinforcing my delete decision.
182:
Normally a request by the author is enough for a page to be deleted. However, several other editors have been editing the article, and the Prod has been contested so it must now run the course of this AfD.
357:, per nom, and per Iamchrisryan. Shameful and ultimately rather pathetic self-promotion attempt which tries to look legitimate by including sources which don't even mention the subject.
321:: I find this article pretty confusing, but maybe I'm missing something. I can't find any mention of him in the first three refs, and I'm at a loss to see the relevance of the
110:
160:
Actually, I added a prod template, someone removed it, I then added the afd template, and that person who removed hte template reverted his changes back to my version.
290:
409:
329:, but I don't really understand what claims are being made here for an encyclopaedic article. I'm not voting, as I don't really get it.
223:
and shows up in a few other articles (more as passing mentions). The article is horrendously overwritten PR and needs to have a snappy
394:
83:
78:
87:
17:
70:
264:, as I realized that since he has worked for a side project of Entrepreneur.com, the article on him there is not an
469:
36:
220:
468:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
233:
cleanup. (Resumes can say "so and so was written up in
Kiplinger's", but encyclopedia articles should not.) --
390:
454:
438:
426:
420:
399:
376:
345:
333:
313:
300:
276:
255:
241:
199:
164:
151:
122:
52:
74:
216:
354:
66:
58:
297:
273:
252:
238:
193:
161:
119:
342:
385:
330:
310:
134:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
415:
211:, hasn't done much except be 18 when he did stuff instead of 25. But he meets the letter of
451:
358:
447:
435:
326:
269:
234:
227:
212:
186:
265:
104:
49:
131:
Noticed you added a prod template. I've changed it to {{subst:AfDM}}
462:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
100:
96:
92:
434:
Excellent article, but regretfully fails notability.--
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
472:). No further edits should be made to this page.
325:ref. I agree this person probably just passes
8:
408:: This debate has been included in the
289:: This debate has been included in the
268:. Notability will arrive in due time. --
7:
291:list of Business-related deletions
24:
384:per nom's excellent explanation.
410:list of India-related deletions
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
323:Journal of Orthopaedic Science
1:
455:17:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
439:19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
427:23:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
400:17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
377:14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
346:20:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
334:23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
314:14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
301:11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
277:08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
256:03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
242:01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
200:22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
165:23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
152:22:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
123:22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
53:01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
489:
465:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
341:not notable enough.
266:independent source
48:- non-notable. --
413:
398:
303:
294:
480:
467:
446:per nom. Fails
423:
418:
404:
388:
374:
371:
368:
365:
295:
285:
260:Vote changed to
232:
226:
198:
196:
189:
147:
143:
140:
137:
108:
90:
34:
488:
487:
483:
482:
481:
479:
478:
477:
476:
470:deletion review
463:
421:
416:
372:
369:
366:
363:
230:
224:
194:
187:
184:
145:
141:
138:
135:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
486:
484:
475:
474:
458:
457:
441:
429:
402:
379:
359:Andrew Lenahan
348:
336:
316:
304:
282:
281:
280:
279:
258:
245:
244:
203:
202:
179:
178:
170:
169:
168:
167:
155:
154:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
485:
473:
471:
466:
460:
459:
456:
453:
449:
445:
442:
440:
437:
433:
430:
428:
425:
424:
419:
411:
407:
403:
401:
396:
392:
387:
383:
380:
378:
375:
360:
356:
352:
349:
347:
344:
340:
337:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
315:
312:
308:
307:Strong Delete
305:
302:
299:
298:Gavin Collins
292:
288:
284:
283:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
257:
254:
253:Croctotheface
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
240:
236:
229:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
205:
204:
201:
197:
191:
190:
181:
180:
175:
172:
171:
166:
163:
162:Croctotheface
159:
158:
157:
156:
153:
150:
149:
148:
130:
127:
126:
125:
124:
121:
120:Croctotheface
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
464:
461:
443:
431:
414:
405:
386:CRGreathouse
381:
362:
350:
338:
322:
318:
311:Iamchrisryan
306:
286:
261:
207:
206:
185:
173:
133:
132:
128:
116:
67:Pankaj Arora
59:Pankaj Arora
45:
43:
31:
28:
331:TreeKittens
262:weak delete
452:Sc straker
208:Weak keep
195:SilkyTalk
177:disagree.
436:Bedivere
270:Dhartung
235:Dhartung
188:SilkTork
111:View log
319:Comment
174:Comment
129:Comment
84:protect
79:history
448:WP:BIO
444:Delete
432:Delete
382:Delete
355:WP:BIo
351:Delete
339:Delete
327:WP:BIO
213:WP:BIO
88:delete
46:Delete
450:. --
343:IP198
215:with
105:views
97:watch
93:links
50:Haemo
16:<
417:Baka
406:Note
353:per
287:Note
274:Talk
239:Talk
228:tone
221:this
219:and
217:this
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
422:man
412:.
370:bli
296:--
293:.
144:Fan
109:– (
393:|
373:nd
367:ar
364:St
361:-
272:|
237:|
231:}}
225:{{
146:24
142:AR
139:SC
136:NA
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
397:)
395:c
391:t
389:(
192:*
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.