Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aly Madhavji


 * 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. I've taken the liberty to disregard the !keep votes due to the sockpuppetry and given that some article quality concerns were unaddressed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Aly Madhavji

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Unable to locate any reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow, it would take a hose to clean all of that MBA-level self promotion from the page. Thankfully, there seems to be no need to keep the page at all. No indication of notability from independent sources, all the information seems to be from the author themselves or from closely-related sources (e.g., university press). The speedy deletion tag was inappropriately deleted by the article creator, as well. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I started this page as someone who has seen the impact of this individual as an author and have read his books. They have won international book awards which is worthy of a Wikipedia page and i have updated the source accordingly. 	--John.sidhu (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is clearly notable WP:AUTHOR as this person has won global awards for writing and has appropriate sources - although I see some were added after the proposed deletion. I would support KEEP as this was given the prestigious book awards by one of the leading book award granting bodies. Minor editing could still be done. Thanks Magnolia677 for pointing me in the right direction. --Mike.jahangir (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that the user above is a sock of John.sidhu. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I can not find reliable independent coverage, and the single minor book award is not enough to support notability through WP:AUTHOR. In addition to that this page reads to be very self promotional. -- Imminent 77   (talk)  19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not a neutral or properly formatted encyclopedia article, but a blatantly advertorialized pile of public relations bumf — so the blow it up and start over principle would apply regardless of whether he was notable enough in principle or not. But as the basic notability claim goes, it is far from certain that the International Book Awards (which don't even have a Wikipedia article that I can read to find out anything about them) would be notable enough to confer notability under WP:AUTHOR on its winners — that's determined by the extent to which the media do or don't cover the award as news, and is not covered off by primary sourcing the award win to the award's own self-published website about itself. And don't even get me started on the notion that writing for The Varsity or The Medium, university student newspapers both, or for Mississauga Magazine, would count as notability claims either. The referencing here is virtually entirely to primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, with virtually no evidence of reliable source coverage in media — which means that there are simply no grounds for a Wikipedia article as things stand right now. No prejudice against recreation in the future if things change, and the article can be written neutrally and sourced properly, but Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform for self-promoting wannabes. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Far too promotional in content. Jazz4477 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - A self-promotional article about a non-notable subject.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.