Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viraj Kapur

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Kapur[edit]

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

Business biography that fails WP:GNG, sourced only to a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview in Men's Health. Other WP:PRIMARY sources are the subject's own website and a database entry, and a Tumblr blog asserting that he was pictured on the cover of Men's Health. With only one borderline-secondary sources, article fails GNG. McGeddon (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAA Hi, I am new to wikipidea. However, Men's Health is an international known and very popular magazine. This was a cover story speaking of Kapur's accomplishments. I have added multiple sources - non-primary and primary. Just because one user "McGeddon" feels it to be not noteworthy I do not think it is right for him to continuously post it for deletion. If he finds the much-celebrated business and media personality to be not worthy of being noteworthy - its a personal opinion not stating that there are inadequate sources and non-noteworthy. I would request the user McGeddon and the administrators to look into the matter and to use any search engine to know more about the achievements of the pages I have helped to create for Wikipidea.— Crepod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Kapur's company website is not independent of the subject, and a database entry confirming that his company exists is a "trivial mention" and not significant in the terms of WP:GNG. Even if the Men's Health article were regarded as a reliable source, it is only one source, where GNG needs multiple sources.

This article won't be deleted because one user doesn't think the article meets these criteria - there will be a discussion. You should add to it if you can. To clarify, I did look on Google for more information about Kapur, but could only find the Men's Health magazine article, and various copies of his Instagram and LinkedIn profiles. I could not find any serious press coverage. --McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAA WP:ABUSE WP:AbRep The articles on Viraj Kapur share "Significant coverage" which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Men’s Health, Seventeen India Magazine, Architectural Digest, any other articles are "Reliable" sources that have editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. These Sources encompass published works in all forms and media. "Sources” are secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Since there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected which have been provided.— Crepod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:19, 29 September 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no better signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would make the assumption that the coverage men's Health etc. is promotional. I don't think any magazine is really free from that, and we need to judge the content by our own common sense. There is no way that the Mens Health article is in any way other than very poorly disguised PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 18 October 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.