Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit Khattar


 * 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. Only keep !votes are from socks or don't address notability concerns at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Rohit Khattar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable entertainment executive. The refs for no part of his career are convincing; Considering the refs;  DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is a extravagantly written overcoverage in an Indian magazine, if it'd not straight pr,its an advertorial
 * 2) is a short pR blurb in an unestablished local NY magazine,
 * 3) is a noncritical but enthusiastic review from a NYC magazine, whose reviews lack that stature of those in the nYT and the NewYorker.
 * 4) is a promotional article in a magazine for executives
 * 5) is in in a throughly unreliable source, used widely to place press relases
 * 6) is an advertisement for a buddy,
 * 7) Unreliable NYC source for restaurant reviews, as discussed above
 * 8) The Indian EconomicTimes article is a advertorial, as customary for that source.
 * 9) Habitat world is a house organ for a commerical centre.


 * Delete per nom. Mr. Khattar knows how to promote himself but that doesn't make him notable.  Yinta n  12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

*Keep This page should not be deleted. All the references mentioned on the page are from established and credible media houses. If there are concerns regarding some references, they can be removed, however the page should not be deleted.  Anc2017  —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTE: user:Anc2017 ⋅is a now blocked sock. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yintan. The self-promotional garbage stinks. So many of these otherwise reliable sources are compromised by pay-for-play coverage. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Analysis above is thorough for those refs that I can see (some are blocked by my ad-blocker).  Velella  Velella Talk 09:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Responding to DGG's points on references, removing references of Alister & Paine & Village Voice. Wall Street Journal is a noteworthy publication, hence should stay. Habitat World refers to hospitality, cultural and entertainment facilities at India Habitat Centre, a non-profit centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipfipf (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTE: user:pfipf ⋅is a now blocked sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The references were revised several times. At present:


 * 1) The first Indian Express articles is a short article about one of his company's films. It just mentions his name as founder. not substantial
 * 2) The first''Indian Standard article ditto. not substantial
 * 3) The second Indian Express article ditto. not substantial
 * 4) The second Business Standard article ditto. not substantial
 * 5) The first Economic Times elaborate PR job on his new restaurant that never skips an opportunity for a laudatory phrase.  not reliable  for anything. because its pure PR.
 * 6) The first Financial Express article. ditto. not reliable except possibly for the restaurant<
 * 7) The third Business Standard article.ditto. not reliable, except possibly for the restaurant
 * 8) The WSJ article. Another restaurant review. not substantially about him, just about the restaurant
 * So we have 4 brief mentions of him in articles about his films, and restaurant reviewswhich might possibly justify an article on the restaurant.  DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails notability. No mercy for paid sock farmers trying every trick in the book and scraping the barrel for sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * delete, blatantly promotional (and that's before mentioning the sockpuppetry) - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with source analysis. Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup   [Talk]  18:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the page has been edited. Please review the page again.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Less blatantly promotional, but still nothing at all that passes WP:GNG or a relevant subsidiary notability guideline - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2016 (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.