Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarun Poddar (2nd nomination)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Poddar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Lesser-known Indian entrepreneur already deleted last month, recreated by an editor with 11 edits, still appears to mostly include routine/promotional sources. Suspicion of COI and/or same user creating a new account. (Didn't G4 as I couldn't see the contents of the previous deleted version of the article) ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as last time, still not notable. Talking to media about what and where your company invests isn't what's needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And based on the SOCK involvement, would recommend salting. Mainly mentions which do not add up to significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty clear promotional article, backed by blogs, promotional puff pieces and sources that lack significant coverage of the person Ravensfire (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles are organic, there are no brand posts in them and there is no disclaimer from which it can be said that the article written is correct, that is why it should not be deleted but improved. Please help me to improve this page. Simmi9090 (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources appear to be paid spam. Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are organic, please double check. Simmi9090 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a bunch of UPE promotional jittery, nothing else. G11 might be involved. No significant coverage whatsoever. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 23:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 can be invoked now, although at this point we could potentially let the AfD run its course. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think letting it run would be good. Hopefully get a consensus on salting due to the persistence of the film-related sock farms. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2024 (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.