Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Jaikishan (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Jaikishan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

delete, this was previously deleted Articles for deletion/Deepak Jaikishan via a deletion discussion. The entire article reads as a promotional political coatrack. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * even if he is notable, the article would require an entire re-write to be brought close to anything encyclopedic. starting fresh from an NPOV manner would likely be the best option anyway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. This page is created for self-promotion. This page Articles for deletion/Deepak Jaikishan previously deleted. I request to administrator to delete this page soon. Jussychoulex (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It should've been an Obvious G4 but the admin reviewing declined thus forcing this farceHell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing farcical about discussing again an article about someone who has attracted lots of coverage in reliable sources since the last AfD. Of course the article needs cleaning up for neutrality, but it's quite possible that this additional coverage lifts the subject over the notability bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Coatrack or not, this seems to be a WP:BLP1E, since as far as I can tell he's not notable for anything else, and he would fail WP:POLITICIAN since he's not an elected official (as far as I can see?). The bio seems to have been created specifically to regurgitate rumors and scandals. Whatever has happened since the last AFD seems to be more of the same. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't tell if the article is WP:PROMO or WP:ATTACK.  In either case, there is no WP:RS to establish notability per the usual BLP standards. Qworty (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral: there are sources but I'm, at this point, not terribly into running them all through a translator to see what they actually state and verify each source is reliable. My gut tells me this is a poorly veiled attack page so it may be best to wipe the slate clean and start again. But there are sources which suggests it would meet GNG. Insomesia (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, the BLP issues involve not only the subject but other living people as well. Are any of them proven as opposed to simply reported on? I don't think so. It's all, he said, they said. Nothing to see here, move along. Yworo (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2013 (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.