Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rickie Sehgal


 * 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. On the whole, the delete arguments are stronger and carry the consensus. Multiple editors searched to find sources to demonstrate notability, but no solid evidence emerged despite these efforts.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rickie Sehgal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

as per WP:BIO. Article seems to be written by the author about himself. No citations. gp pande  «talk»  15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – just not there yet, but getting close. I was able to find a few independent – verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources about Mr. Sehgal, as shown here .  Sorry to say, just not enough.  Good luck to him and his company.  I hope to see an article here in the not to distant future. ShoesssS Talk 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If there should be an article in the future, then that sounds to me like a "surmountable problem" and we should keep it. It's certainly not a bad article--not so bad that it should be deleted for harm anyway.  I know that alone is not a reason to keep, but if experts close to the topic/subject area expect more, then just keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BIO again. Just one or two internet citations are not enough to prove a person's notability to include in an encyclopedia. -- gp pande  «talk»  07:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PROBLEM. An article that can be improved should be improved, not deleted.  Oh, and WP:BIO states under basic criteria:  "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."  I'd argue that multiple means more than one, and two is more than one.  I didn't say it was a good article, just that I'd rather see it improoved instead of deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are multiple citations available. The query would be more appropriate. I would rather suggest adding external links than deleting. Sat0rius Talk 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue to improve the article. I am not entirely sure, but I think that the hinduforum.org link should be removed.  RFerreira (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you for the hinduforum.org link. Also look at the other external links too. They look like sheer advertisements and so do not qualify as credible sources to verify identity. Also the article does not have any citations for this bio. -- gp pande  «talk»  07:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree that at the very least the first 3 links should be removed, they are all written by Mr Sehgal, two of them are his company websites. As such they are clearly there purely for advertisement. The whole article is highly questionable in value and feels very much like self promotion rather than factually useful.Mangiare (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I don't understand the keep arguments - at the moment there is only a single reliable source which doesn't give significant coverage. If there are other sources, then why haven't you added them? PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of independent sources.  I assume that http://www.vnunet.com/crn/news/2197349/ebay-resellers-launched-dealer is sponsored unless someone can demontrate otherwise.  Found http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/apr/02/usnews.frontpagenews but it contains only a passing mention of the subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2008 (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.