Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Rajilal

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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Rajilal[edit]

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

This guy doesn't seem to be notable as the article claims. There's no evidence I can find for the claim about being connected to the Queen Elizabeth I movies Elizabeth (film) and its sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age, and the Hindi-language film he's supposedly famous for Salaam-e-Ishq: A Tribute to Love shows someone else as producer. This looks like a possible hoax or self-promotion article. No evidence whatsoever of his notability from a Google search, and IMDB lists a couple unknown shorts, but no connection with any notable production. I found the photo of him on Commons, which shows he himself started this article. Rosario Berganza 07:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Facebook and twitter could not be references for a notable figure. Educationtemple (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Surprise this wasn't caught sooner about the COI, anyway per nom I'm voting that. Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no significant coverage in independent sources. COI creation. The fact his twitter and facebook are linked as well as the last line of "Currently Rajesh Rajilal is recruiting and training student across the globe" makes it pretty obvious it's promotional puff piece. Cowlibob (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (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.