User talk:Vijaybanner

Please stop speedy delete tagging articles
Please stop speedy delete tagging articles until you understand the speedy deletion criteria. You are tagging articles as db-nocontext when they clearly have context. Just because an article is short does not mean it isn't have context. Also, you are including the speedy deletion navbox for unknown reasons. Please stop until you understand the proper criteria and process. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Re your message: An article lacking references or having incorrect references does not qualify for speedy deletion due solely to the reference issue. For an article to be speedy deleted, it must meet the listed speedy deletion criteria.  I suggest you go read the deletion policy before you pursue any deletions. Please make sure you understand all of the requirements before you request another deletion and follow the correct procedures. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Re your message: No, your proposed deletion is not valid either. Merely writing an autobiography is not a valid deletion reason.  Many autobiographies are deleted, but because they usually do not make any notability claim or are advertisements.  This article is neither.  It makes a notability claim, has references, and is not an advertisement.  The article was already properly tagged with the autobiography template.  If you really want to pursue deletion with that article, you should follow the articles for deletion process for that one.


 * Also, you put the proposed deletion template in the wrong place. The only templates that are to be used within the Multiple issues template are the article maintenance templates. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Can you take a look at this page
Re your message: The Forbes article is a reliable source and can be included in the article. The anonymous editor is incorrect in removing it without reason. However, the reference has been added in ways that do not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view. The closest version to a neutral point of view is what it was originally added. Your tagging of the article as hoax was not quite correct. Arun Pudur's true wealth and business may be questionable, but the article itself is not a hoax. There is a difference between somebody being a hoax and the article being a hoax. For example, Cedric Allingham would be somebody who is a hoax, but their article is not a hoax. A hoax article would be if I wrote something like:

You can put the Forbes article back in the article as a proper reference, just be careful of the required neutral point of view. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)