Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arun Raikar

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. Closing based on clear, early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Raikar[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)

GNG fail. The source quality and the claims made in the article are questionable. Possibly (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the sources used are not reliable per WP:RSP. A WP:BEFORE search found nothing of note. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a plenty number of video corroborations; for instance you can watch these: one, two, three, four... - Yitbe ^A-21 06:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those videos are a good advertisement for Double-sided tape. Possibly (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be open-minded and rational. Yitbe ^A-21 07:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am rational. Double-sided tape and other materials are very good for magic tricks. Possibly (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a guess. How could you know it is a double-sided tape or other materials? - Yitbe ^A-21 07:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As has been said above, the sources are not reliable, and not enough in-depth references can be found to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it matters if the claims presented are true or not as long as it has enough coverage, but as others have said the coverage the subject has received is from generally unreliable sources, and not many at that. If more, better sources can be found than perhaps keep. Pladica (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2020 (AST)
Delete, tabloid coverage does not add up to WP:GNG, arguably a case of WP:BLP1E. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fringe claim. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MEDRS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL No validation or independent fact check of the claims by any expert bodies. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Single news event of 2016 covered by multiple tabloids are not proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalPuff (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to rid Wikipedia of articles built on unreliable junk sources as this article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 29 December 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.