Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anurag Arora


 * 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. The SandDoctor Talk 01:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Anurag Arora

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:TNT and fails WP:V. I declined a CSD G2 nom as it is not technically a test page. In a sane world this would be a speedy but there is no criteria that really applies. In any case, even if the subject passes GNG the article is unacceptable and would require a from scratch rewrite. Will happily withdraw the nom if someone wants to undertake that and can ring the WP:N bell.

We really need a CSD G15 (article is FUBAR) but until then... Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Nom. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Article is an unmitigated mess beyond hope of recovery.  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as best I can tell (which is hard because the article is a mess) this is a biography of a living person. Also as best I can tell, there are no sources. This is clear grounds for deletion.03:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems to be a list of the productions this person has appeared in, and the roles played. No assertion of notability. Might have been a candidate for Speedy under A7 (no indication of importance)? Neiltonks (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. I think he might be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the sources. Unfortunately it doesn't really resolve the principal problem. As I noted in my nominating statement, it is entirely possible that the subject is notable. But the article quality is so poor that it is not salvageable absent a from scratch rewrite. I will repeat my offer to withdraw the nomination if the article gets a full scale overhaul and notability is established. But in its current state it just can't be kept. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * After looking at the sources I don't think they ring the WP:N bell. The first two are obviously just short PR blurbs. In fact they are identical in wording. The third is also clearly a PR fluff piece and I doubt the source is RS. The fourth is little more than a couple of sentences confirming the subject's existence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NACTOR; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing to meet GNG per the above but in particular Ad Orientam's reply re: sources. This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed does not exactly instill faith in the source.


 * 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.