Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vik Bakhru

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. Sandstein 20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Bakhru[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)

Previous article speedy deleted back in April on grounds of G11 and G12.This one is very similar if not identical by same creator. I asked then on his talk page about his relationship with subject - no response. Copyvio of http://consejosano.com/about-us/ but creator has removed speedy delete tag- see revision history. The article should be deleted and salted as its non notable, copyvio and promotional and possibly fails BLP too Lyndaship (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information is just basic facts about the individual. It's not intended to be promotional. What if anything will make it work? I noticed a lot of the pages for individuals on Wikipedia are similar with the same type of information and modeled this similar to those pages. Please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananazed (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bio of a pretty ordinary businessperson, fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable doctor/businessperson. The article doesnt even make any claims to notability. Its a BLP with only one single citation! And only one sentence out of the material used as a reference is actually about the subject; there is only one cited fact in the whole article. It should properly be gutted as an unreferenced BLP. I couldn't find much more; there appear to be only run of the mill one sentence passing mentions, or stock potted self provided bios avaliable (oddly similar to this article strangely enough). Certainly nothing approaching the in depth and independent sources needed to sustain a proper article. Curdle (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2018 (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.