Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihaan Patel

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 keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rihaan Patel[edit]

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

this article does not qualify for GNG as there are no multiple, reliable and independent sources which give substantial coverage to the subejct. it's a vanity page created by the subject himself. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 14:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does appear to be a vanity page, of the cited sources two are trivial mentions. I am inclined to agree with the self promotion aspect and lack of notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issues of tone and citation format have been addressed.[1] The filmmaker and his work have received enough recognition by reliable sources to meet WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. To disagree with the preceding editor and the nominator, the sources Ahmedabad Mirror[2] and NDTV[3] comprise somewhat more-than-trivial coverage of the filmmaker and his work. "Substantial" and "Significant" are not the same thing. And toward the nominator's allegation of WP:COI (and I've not read anything from this authror granting that he is the subject of the article)... "if" the author is the filmmaker himself, all he need do is to be advised to avoid further edits to the article. And while editing about oneself it is strongly discouraged and frought with potential for peril due to POV, it is not strictly outlawed. Heck... even Jimbo has edited the article on himself. Its all about being careful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to Schmidt's sources, see also [4] & [5]. Cavarrone (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the significant coverage in India Today. It's been now added to the article as a citation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the added sources are more than sufficient to verify notability. It could use a go-over for grammar (I don't have time, or I'd do it) but the notability of the subject and the reliability of the sources should not be in doubt, and the creator has been informed of the COI guidelines (I checked his talk page). - Jorgath (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage found in the sources identified above by Schmidt and Cavarrone. Gongshow ^Talk 08:40, 6 March 2012 (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.