Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vipin Brar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Brar[edit]

Vipin Brar (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)

Non-notable person without any secondary sources Dwpaul Talk 14:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved here from WP:BLPN)

Vipin Brar has not done anything substantial to be given space on wikipedia, he has no contribution for veterinary profession . I was part of this movement and know this person. The citation are not showing his involvement in any matter. Kindly review and delete his webpage. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only 2 of the 10 cited sources mention the subject of this article; one is the subject's own Web site, and the other claims to be a newspaper article but is a link to a privately hosted JPEG image, not the newspaper's site, and contains typographical errors that bring its authenticity into question. As a BLP, this article should be, at the very least, cleaned up to remove information about various events described but not demonstrably linked to the subject, and possibly deleted altogether. In the meantime, I have placed Template:BLP noticeboard on the article. Dwpaul Talk 01:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor who reviewed the original AfC of this article had reservations about many aspects of this article (discussed with the editor who created it here[1] and elsewhere on his Talk page) that seemingly remain unresolved (but it was created just the same). Dwpaul Talk 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only one of the references (that is not the subject's Web site) that actually mentions the subject of the article[2] appears to contain a falsification. It claims to be a reproduction of a page from the Hindustan Times. However, the email address "[email protected]" appearing in the JPEG image does not appear on any HT articles. The site uses [email protected] in its bylines.[3] Dwpaul Talk 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 2. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 14:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above concerns. Subject is non-notable, and article has the appearance of an autobiographical vanity page. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur entirely with Sorbet. Compare with official website to see similarities, promotional content. One further vote to delete. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider Just have some time to look at the images of receiving awards from various cabinet ministers. Please take into consideration that there must be some contributions for all those awards. You can google all the ministers mentioned to make sure the identity. Please consider this. The subject do have notability. Coolvipcandy (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that none of the information in those images is verifiable. It seems to exist only in JPEG images hosted on a Web site controlled by the subject. No one disputes that people exist; what needs to be independently verifiable is that the events described actually occurred and that the subject actually played the role claimed in those events. There are currently no independently verifiable sources for notability as called for at WP:GNG. Dwpaul Talk 17:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also keep in mind that you and we may be defining "notability" differently. An individual can be liked, respected and even awarded by his or her community, peers and/or important officials and still not be notable for the purposes of a biographical article on Wikipedia. WP:GNG clearly defines notability as "[having] received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and further states that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". At this time neither criterion is met. Dwpaul Talk 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with these points, and note that even if an individual receives repeated coverage in a reliable source that is independent, some thought needs to be given to the nature of the independent source(s) cited. An individual may receive coverage daily for weeks in a local, independent newspaper, but not have sufficient significance to warrant an article in a global English language encyclopedia article. Myriads of award-winning students, teachers, professors, politicians, etc. receive comparable news coverage, but are not presented as WIkipedia article subjects. LeProf --50.179.92.36 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to seek clarification, that the contributor Coolvipcandy is not the subject of the article, or a member of family or otherwise closely associated, or an employee of the subject, etc.? LeProf --50.179.92.36 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the concern of the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Since this article is proposed for deletion, the question of whether the editor has COI is moot. Dwpaul Talk 02:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coolvipcandy (I), am neither related nor employee of subject. The reason for scanned newspaper copies is that the newspapers of Punjab don't have archive of over 6 months. please check http://epaper.jagbani.com , http://newspaper.ajitjalandhar.com , these two are main newspapers in Punjab. Rest you can check images or send to expert to verify the content and graphic nature. There's no doubt that the notability of subject is local (Limited to Punjab state), and the article content can be translated to Punjabi. Coolvipcandy (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that also is moot. As mentioned above, only one of the cited sources that is not the subject's personal Web site even mention the subject. The content of the other "scanned" articles (JPEGs hosted on a Web site controlled by the subject) do nothing to establish the notability of the subject, since they do not even mention him. The photographs are pure "eye candy," since the context in which they were taken is unknown, and they do not establish notability. Dwpaul Talk 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Readers should not need to "check images or send to [an] expert to verify the content and graphic nature" to verify that information presented in Wikipedia articles, particularly biographical articles, is factual. See above concerning the need for "verifiable, objective evidence" to be provided (by the writer, not sought by the reader) to establish notability. Dwpaul Talk 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is determined by reliable sources, of which in this instance appear to none that can be verified. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe photos are from the state functions which were organised by RVO association for thanking the ministers for the favor they did by agreeing with RVOs demands. The ministers distributed these in return as a token for thanks to all the vets who attended that party, almost 200 vets got it, not just a special person . Further, M.V.C.G., Gold Medalist A.B.C. (Vets Beyond Borders ) Australia)- is not some degree offered by any vet school. inder neal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coolvipcandy" is himself Vipin Brar, this is his tweeter handle, https://twitter.com/Coolvipcandy. We should consider deleting him, as he was denying having relationship with Vipin Brar, how can his article be authenticated!. inder neal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A different issue, and difficult to verify, but taken on face value is certainly troubling as it suggests that the editor has been less than honest in his dealings with us. Dwpaul Talk 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. The citations given fail to establish notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has quite clear appearance of an autobiographical vanity page, with issues in citations. - Ullhas (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vipin_Brar&oldid=1173154269"