Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajat Bhageria (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. Kurykh (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Rajat Bhageria
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:Notable: Author of a self-published book and co-founder of a non-notable application and business. The article also looks like a copy of the previously deleted version and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. GSS (talk |c|em ) 11:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (was Weak Keep) Most of the sources are to his work or to his supplied CV. The Wharton interview has a summary of his bio and it is an article about him (as opposed to "by" him.) I lean towards keep and improve. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think we can use that link to support notability? I don't think we can use interview to improve any article because per WP:IV interviews should be treated like self-published material and he is also a former student of the same school. GSS (talk |c|em ) 03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also a summary bio before the interview. I'd hope the author of that interview checked out his background and I have to assume this publication is reliable in that respect. I would hesitate to write a whole article based on that slim notability. I'd hope that more could be found. That's why I only tend to lean toward "keep" and hope that the article can be improved. Let me consider it further. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting the reliability of the source but my main concern is can we use this soruce to support notability? becasue I can't see any source which talk about the subject directly and in details. Plenty of self-published, primary and passing mention can be found but can't see any significant coverage in secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk |c|em ) 17:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is rather weak. Let me give it more thought. I'm consumed elsewhere. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: On reconsideration Lambert has a good point. I'm tipping to delete. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete There is a lack of reliable sources about him. The intro to an interview is not a fully indepdent 3rd party source, and even if it was, GNG requires multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2017 (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.