Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankaj 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 - non-notable. --Haemo 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pankaj Arora

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is self-promotion. It's cleverly done, and it cites some impressive sources, but it remains self-promotion. This article abuses its sources, of which many do not mention this person by name, to make him appear notable. This article does not report on what third party sources have said about him. It uses those sources to in such a way to make Arora appear impressive. Rather than talk about what VH1 said about him, it says, essentially, "he's so important that he has been covered in VH1." It has so many problems, and my suspicion is that once those problems are worked through, we will be left with a person who has not yet done anything of such significance that he should have a WP article. Also, I think something like one or no mainspace articles link to this one, and the article has basically no editing activity. Whoever was interested in making this page wanted to write up something that made him look like a million bucks, but in the years since, nobody else has seemed to care. One would think that some other articles would link to this person if he was notable, or that other editors would have changes to make if they did. Croctotheface 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Noticed you added a prod template. I've changed it to  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 22:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I added a prod template, someone removed it, I then added the afd template, and that person who removed hte template reverted his changes back to my version. Croctotheface 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment That is correct. I conceded my request to have the page not deleted, thus the AfD is not needed and I reverted the page back to the original deletion notice so it can be deleted.  I figured this made more sense so I reverted it back again, let me know/change if you disagree.
 * Normally a request by the author is enough for a page to be deleted. However, several other editors have been editing the article, and the Prod has been contested so it must now run the course of this AfD.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, hasn't done much except be 18 when he did stuff instead of 25. But he meets the letter of WP:BIO with this and this and shows up in a few other articles (more as passing mentions). The article is horrendously overwritten PR and needs to have a snappy tone cleanup. (Resumes can say "so and so was written up in Kiplinger's", but encyclopedia articles should not.) --Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really not impressed with those sources. My suspicion, as I said, is that once the article is cleaned up, it will have nothing to say.  In my mind, being the subject of a couple of fluff pieces does not notability make. I think a good analogy would be an article on a high school athlete. Lots of local papers, which would universally be considered reliable sources, do profiles on high school athletes.  I don't think that a couple of those articles would establish notability if the person's actual accomplishments are not in themselves notable.  Croctotheface 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to weak delete, as I realized that since he has worked for a side project of Entrepreneur.com, the article on him there is not an independent source. Notability will arrive in due time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - All the sources listed are not sources for this person. This seems like it was, as noted by the original nominator, specifically done like this to fool use into letting the article stay, further reinforcing my delete decision. Iamchrisryan 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find this article pretty confusing, but maybe I'm missing something. I can't find any mention of him in the first three refs, and I'm at a loss to see the relevance of the Journal of Orthopaedic Science ref. I agree this person probably just passes WP:BIO, but I don't really understand what claims are being made here for an encyclopaedic article. I'm not voting, as I don't really get it. TreeKittens 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable enough. IP198 20:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIo, per nom, and per Iamchrisryan. Shameful and ultimately rather pathetic self-promotion attempt which tries to look legitimate by including sources which don't even mention the subject. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's excellent explanation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   Baka  man  23:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Excellent article, but regretfully fails notability.--Bedivere 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO.  --Sc straker 17:11, 7 October 2007 (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.