Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangeet Paul Choudary

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 Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeet Paul Choudary[edit]

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

The author is not notable. There are only two events that are of note, but edits continue to cite every single article written by the author anywhere, including ones in paid sources like Forbes.

The article has historically been written as a resume, with no clarity on notability.

Lastly, all prior edits seem to have been made from one IP address based in Singapore, including the provision of a unlicensed portrait imaged that appears to have been created for the subject in a private setting. This suggests an attempt at an autobiography, which a Wikipedia policy strongly discourages. UserGlobal7 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has deleted substantial sourced content--the subject has been referenced and interviewed by numerous publications. Usually the concern is that WP:COI propels promotional biographies, and if that's the case here, it can be pared. But this is the first instance I've seen of an AfD begun by a WP:SPA, and one wonders what's behind the nearly total denuding of the article and this nomination. A restoration of at least some of the sourced content would be proper. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can this be speedy closed without prejudice; the nomination makes absolutely no points that are valid deletion criteria. More specifically: 'only two events' != 1BLP; 'cite every single article' suggests, at first glance, that further sources may therefore exist; while WP:NOTCV is a worthy call for deletion, the stubbing has dealt with that; where an IP is based, and the copyright status of one picture, is irrelevant. And whilst it is true that autobiographies are discouraged, we don't automatically delete them; it's what the Save changes button is for :) So, this is a malformed nom. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 03:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I second the speedy close recommendation & concerns of the previous commenters, especially WP:SPA. A look at Special:Contributions/UserGlobal7 reveals that the nominator appears to have a grudge against the subject, and their edits could be seen as an edit war. Why did they tear it apart just to AfD? – gwendy (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2017 (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.