Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajiv Arora

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. Discounting the "keep" by a blocked sock. Sandstein 17:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Arora[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

not independently notable, pr spam and likely paid for. No meaningful coverage, fails both NPOL and whatever NCORP applies to people. No objection to redirecting to his company though. Praxidicae (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. Clear away the mountain of paid puff pieces, and we're left with a) founded a notable company, b) held a dozen non-notable political and bureaucratic positions, c) was one of three people arrested recently in a conspiracy investigation. It doesn't add up to WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Article creator's editing pattern strongly suggests WP:COI, with ~~two~~ three attempts so far to remove the only well-sourced paragraph in the article: the one I added about the arrest. Agree with nominator that a redirect would be fine, in case anything develops about the conspiracy allegations. Captain Calm (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Calm also removed well sourced information two times from the article.CleanAmbassy (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable politician and businessman in India. Clearly passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Enough citations for justification. CleanAmbassy (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CleanAmbassy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Yes, i am the creator of the article. Is that mean i am not able to put Keep vote or should i not defending the article? — Note to closing admin: Captain Calm does not have any evidence, this is only his assumption.CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment, but it does have to be stated on the record because it does mean you're not an objective judge of whether the article actually meets our requirements or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said i am a Judge? I am not a judge. But i have right to defend the article and put my thoughts here. You can't push me down.CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the source of the discussion above, using the "edit" link. Can you see where is says ? There's a template, Template:Page creator, which is routinely used on comments to "keep" posted by page creators in an AFD. It's not saying you have no right to post here, it's simply a matter of record for the reviewing admin, as Bearcat notes. Captain Calm (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this is what i also trying to say that a page creator has rights to put 'Keep' comment and putting a 'Keep' comment doesn't mean that creator is a Judge.CleanAmbassy (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2020 (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.