Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaurya Doval
- 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Shaurya Doval[edit]
- Shaurya Doval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional BLP. Most of which is unsourced. The subject does not appear to meet GNG even though he has received some press coverage. It appears the subject received most of the press coverage due to his father Ajit Kumar Doval so I would say Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited applies here. Furthermore, the subject has recently entered politics, but as of now he fails to meet Wikipedia:POLITICIAN as well.. GNG says we need coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. And I'm afraid we don't have required coverage, as yet. The article claims the subject received two awards but they are not notable in any sense. Summing up now, Wikipedia:NotJustYet
Also I noted a user added a notability tag but it was removed by a SPA.. so I think some socking is going on here. Saqib (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
And just found the page was previously in Draft NS (Draft:Shaurya Doval) and was declined four times, by @1997kB, Bradv, Dial911, and Samee:..--Saqib (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 11:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The draft appeared to be promotional and there was a clear case of inherited notability at that time. So it was rejected by me.Dial911 (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete and Comments: I am sure it has happened but the first instance I have seen. What is the protocol here? The article doesn't belong, being turned down 4 times, but somehow was created "almost" identically (apparently the citations are the same just placed differently) to the ones rejected. It appears there must have been some collaboration to get an article created regardless of accepted community practices. Is there a "speedy" criteria so should this be brought to the attention of an admin? If no speedy criteria is there other reasoning this can be dealt with by an admin as a breach of accepted community practices or possible "socking"? Was the circumvention successful so we must go through the deletion process and possibly seek salting that can be just as easily circumvented? If an SPA (or anyone) removes a template without justification they should be warned but notability is certainly questioned with an AFD. "IF" consensus is still a deciding factor then there is currently two "delete" !votes, one "comment" and two involved editors that have not yet weighed in on the matter. However, it does seem there would be a way to prevent this from happening, or needs to be, else creativity has found a loophole that can be used in the future. Otr500 (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Weak delete - not yet, but maybe in a couple of years. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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.