Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hem Raj BC


 * 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. There seems to be consensus for a dash of salt in addition to deletion to stop the disruption. believes the subject to be notable, so should anyone want to write a properly sourced article, feel free to contact me to unsalt. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-close addendum: I was careless in my language above, and mischaracterised 's position. To clarify for the record, they noted that the subject would likely be notable if the assertions made in the article could be verified with reliable sources, but that no such sources have been identified. The rest of my closing statement stands, please contact me for unsalt if suitable sources are identified. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hem Raj BC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Paid editor created submission from an editor that refused to use AfC as is the normal process per WP:COI. Article is mild to overtly promotional throughtout and the sources used are terrible. Generally I'm not a fan of invoking WP:TNT but honestly the amount of work needed to rework this version of the article far exceeds simply starting from scratch. Possibly an article could be written on this guy, but the existing submission is not it. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    10:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. I had a go at tidying up the worst of the layout etc last week (see: Draft:Hem Raj BC (director)), but agree that it is a terrible article and excessively promotional. The trouble is, the subject is almost certainly notable, if everything in the article is true, but the sources are so poor that a firm conclusion is not possible. Emeraude (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons why I don't like paid editors is their stubbornness. The article was deleted under G11, draftified for clean-up, the submission was declined, still no improvements and it's back to the mainspace to waste our time. The creator (SPA/CNH) appears to have no interest in following the policies, he was just paid to create this page no matter how. I tried but can't find better sources and the notability of the films he has directed is also doubtful so, delete - salt if notable, someone else will write about it. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT per above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the inconvenience, but i am not actually a paid user but helping a friend. This is my first article and still on the learning phase. I have added more link sources that prove the point that the person is legit and has done all these projects. Please review once more and if their is any chances and suggestions please help me as i am willing to do every steps to make it right. Hope the community will help me.--Hellone69 (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Seriously? how about you posted on my talk page? Also, the sources you just added before commenting here are not reliable see WP:RS. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 10:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if you weren't paid (which seems unlikely given your previous statement on GSS's talk page) you still have a very clear WP:COI if you are writing about a personal friend. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong delete and salt WP:TNT applies. That's why I went to the trouble of draftifying it once; there was already a duplicate in draftspace that made it necessary to add disambiguator to the title. Now that they've recreated it, that makes it two drafts and one article, all copies. The article can not be marked as reviewed without a lot of work, and I strongly oppose rewarding bad behaviour from paid editors by doing the work for them. What's to stop them from just turning it into a hagiography once the AFD is done, since they have shown already that they have no respect for our COI-related quality control procedures. It's more work than it's worth, and it would set a very bad precedent with regard to our very unhelpfully worded COI policies if we adopt this article. Salt it too, we can unsalt it once we have a draft that an independent editor chooses to accept. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:58, 16 March 2020 (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.