Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vish Khanna

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vish Khanna[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)

Unsourced WP:BLP. Prod removed for some reason. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Radio, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable media personality with the CBC. I've found a few things written by this individual [1], [2], but nothing we can use to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the person does not pass WP:BIO. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm certainly aware of Vish Khanna, because as a Canadian editor who works on musical topics I often cite stuff he wrote for Exclaim! — in fact, I distinctly remember adding a citation to a piece of his writing within the past two days, though damned if I can remember off the top of my head what article I added it to. But the notability test for media personalities isn't the extent to which they've been the creator of coverage about other things, it's the extent to which they've been the subject of coverage created by other people. However, the only references here are to Blogspot blogs, one of which is an interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person and the other is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an interview with somebody else — but that's not the kind of sourcing it takes, and I can't find anything else that would count as GNG-building coverage. Reliable sourcing means real media outlets and books covering his work as news, not Blogspot blogs or staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own current or former employers. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2023 (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.