Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Jasra

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Jasra

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

I do not believe that the article's subject currently meets WP:BIO inclusion requirements.

The cited sources are predominantly primary source articles written by the article's subject (and the cited book is self-published); by themselves I don't believe these constitute the kind of independent coverage needed for notability. A Google News search turns up many more articles Jasra has written, but only a handful that are about him: the best is probably this, an interview. There is also the cited "invesp" source, which does mention him (ranking him 39th in an editorial list of web marketers in 2009), but I do not believe that these two isolated pieces of coverage are, sufficient to demonstrate notability either.

A prod tag was removed by an IP. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator states, there's a lot of articles written by him in WebProNews, but coverage about him is scant. I would discount the Invesp articel as a source. This is a company that builds eCommerce sites so it's not clear what sort of real editorial decision making goes into its list. The WebProNews article is also problematic as he is being interviewed in a publication for which he does an awful lot of writing, which is to say that I discount it on the basis of it not being sufficiently independent. The Adage ranking is some algorithm derived listing so there is no decision to notability to how it works, and in any case, it actually provide no other information than a ranking so it fails to be significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wrote the original article - Please go ahead and delete this article, but do it right away. bctg23 —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 8 December 2010 (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.