Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Du Kirpalani


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Du Kirpalani

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a completely unsourced BLP (it does not qualify for blpprod due to age). It does a great job of name dropping (various notable people he allegedly worked with, etc) but none of it is sourced. B (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How are IMDB references not considered valid sources ? Youtube links to standup comedy shows performed have been removed. IMDB links to the shows that include Du Kirpalani as a writer have been removed. If IMDB does not qualify as a valid film source, could you please tell me what does ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.246.125 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDB contains user-authored data and is not considered to be a reliable source. --B (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * comment - it is possible that under all the press agentry and nauseatingly shameless promotional editing by the subject, his agent, his friends, his family, his producer(s), etc., there is actually a salvageable article here. Our US/UK cultural bias is well-known, and may be relevant here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the article, he lives in America now. If he were notable, you would think we could find something on him.  As of right now, there isn't even anything that confirms his existence, let alone his notability.  --B (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and Mike, when you say "Our US/UK cultural bias is well-known," who is "we"? I write more articles on Asian stuff than American, and I take umbrage at the blanket tarring. Wikipedia as a community works very hard to prevent systemic bias. That does not mean we should wring our hands and let vanity autobios get a pass.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * reply I'm going by the state of the typical article on a small Tennessee town, for example, compared to that for a much bigger town in Maharashtra or Bali. That's not to deny that some of our editors do their best. In the case of this article, I meant that the claims of notability due to work in the Indian television industry are harder for the typical Wikipedia editor to confirm or deny, compared to the situation if he'd worked for the BBC or any U.S. network. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * reply+1 And how extensive are those Tennessee town articles on the Hindi or Gujarati or Malayalam Wikipedias? Bias is relative, the argument has no business in this AfD.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete due to utter lack of even a token effort toward neutrality; this could probably have been G11'd. I count 21 sentences in the current revision of the article; no more than two of them would appear unchanged in an NPOV version.  Even if this person is even minimally notable, the onus is on those wishing to retain the article to provide reliable sources to show that he's an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article.  I could find no such sources amongst your obvious SEO; Wikipedia is not another outlet for the same. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO - little coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 17:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I prodded this sometime back as unsourced. Some IP got it reinstated through WP:REFUND. Instead of writing a neutral article using reliable sources, he (presumably the subject himself) has created an unsourced unabashedly promotional piece. ("I depend on wikipedia to get new work and I don't look professional if my articles are subject to deletion. Not only employers, but lawyers check up on me.")--Sodabottle (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a point of clarification, the article was never deleted (at least not under this name). IPs opened four separate requests on WP:REFUND and each time were informed that the article had never been deleted. --B (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2010 (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.