Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.V. Anoop

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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 11:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A.V. Anoop[edit]

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

Does not meet requirements of WP:BIO or WP:BLP. Few references actually discuss the subject and most that actually mention the subject do so only peripherally (in a list or as a contact). There is no indication of notability, but a suggestion of self-promotion. Rpclod (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Coverage does not rise to the level required to pass general notability, WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. If, somehow, this article survives AfD it should be stubbed. Jbh ^Talk 12:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exactly as above, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and is a WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the content, it's unbiased and the points have reliable reference links - Thehindu, New Indian Express, etc. AV Anoop has produced over ten malayalam movies(see the filmography section), and one of the movies - Paleri Manikyam - won five Kerala State Film Awards. Sureshkajal (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)— Sureshkajal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I believe that the above user is a SPA. The user attempted to delete the notice for this AfD in the subject article unilaterally and has attempted to add link spam to the Hospital article.--Rpclod (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the the data provided by the user seems to be genuine, as AV Anoop is a popular personality. If you search on Google "A V Anoop", you will see the Knowledge Graph with relevant details about him. Judging the users previous activity with a genuine article seems to be not fair. MVRVarma (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wikipedia policy to identify an SPA. Per WP:SPA, the identification is "an aid to those discussing or closing the debate. These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not based upon your judgment and discretion." The facts are that the user attempted to unilaterally delete the AfD notice and also was warned about link spam. This has nothing to do with "fair".--Rpclod (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD notice was a mistake, and I understand that it was completely against the policies. I didn't mean to pass the article just by removing the notice. The discussion is supposed to be about the article, not about a user. Also I don't get why it is marked for no notability. As the above user said, please do a Google search and see the details. Sureshkajal (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell, of all the sources listed in the article none of them are about the subject. There are passing or tangential mentions and some things about his company but nothing about him. Google hits are essentially meaningless what is needed to demonstrate notability are articles in independent, third party, reliable sources which discuss him as a major topic of the article. Jbh ^Talk 03:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think these articles talk about the person only. Kindly check: http://epaper.deccanchronicle.com/articledetailpage.aspx?id=2880801

http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/behind-the-lather/article7167221.ece Sureshkajal (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is about a soap company of which the subject is a principal. It does not discuss the subject himself. The other is a vanity piece in an electronic supplement that appears to have been written by a publicist. Regardless, one article is insufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) @ 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - I understand both sides and think the article, while somewhat neat and sourced, could use better sources. One of the things that gets me is, are the awards notable? SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[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.