Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (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 keep. Despite the SPA/sock allegations, the WP:CONSENSUS is to retain the article. Philg88 ♦talk 06:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Trishneet Arora
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete Recreation by a SPA Account. WP:CSD likely to apply. Repeated addition of advert content by ip, similar to the ones that disputed previous afd discussion. Sources listed have only mention of his name. Non-notable per WP:N and sources fails WP:SOURCE Only two sources that too local supplements aren't enough to determine notability KatyRat (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update In light to updated sources due to this afd, I would like the article to be rewritten in a better way rather than making it a CV, and should be cross checked with the sources. The socks that work for promoting the article unnecessarily should be warned and blocked. If repeatedly occurs then semi protect the page. KatyRat (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above !vote is the nomination and KatyRat is the nominator. -- Green  C  21:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. -- Green  C  17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No much improvement after previous afd discussion where it was deleted. Simply a recreation again. Moreover the Ip that recently voted as keep in this discussion is blatantly voting on multiple afd without any justification therefore I removed that vote. Please refer to old afd as well. KatyRat (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator account is a SPA. -- Green  C  17:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so KatyRat (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 01:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 01:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Needs improvement, remove promotional content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — 122.166.137.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No clear justification. Sounds similar defending cause as previous afd. KatyRat (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:KatyRat, do not edit other's edits. I have restored the IP's comment. Btw, you yourself, through this account, have less than 10 edits on WP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit is referred to striking off the above with a valid justification. If you think it's wrong, you can justify KatyRat (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The IP activity on this afd reminds the behaviour on its previous afd which was deleted post discussion. I would like other editors to have a look at the earlier afd and compare it with the ip. KatyRat (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article was recreated by a SPA User:Blackstallion55 whose sole purpose is to edit and promote this article even without passing deletion review. Likely to be a sock. KatyRat (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment KatyRat, you can't delete and strike-out !votes and comments just because you don't like them. Stop interfering with the due process of the AfD. This is your second warning. If if continues I will ask for help from a moderator. -- Green  C  15:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is your first warning although! KatyRat (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your behavior was noted by Dharmadhyaksha also so you had two warnings. Then you did it a third time and CANVAS is more serious. And once again you're messing with people's comments - I restored my comment back after you moved it out of chronological order for an inexplicable reason. -- Green  C  21:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have stated valid reasons for my actions above quite clearly. KatyRat (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ping, , ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatyRat (talk • contribs)
 * KatyRat chose to ping all who !voted Delete in the last AfD while excluding the majority who !voted Keep. This is a clear case of WP:CANVAS and puts the viability of this entire AfD in doubt. This is the third case of WP:Disruptive editing by KatyRat during this AfD so I will be asking a moderator to look at it. -- Green  C  12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ANI request for help. -- Green  C  13:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There appear to be sufficient WP:RS to justify an article. It needs work and there's not a lot of information but a stub on him as an author is probably justified. SPACKlick (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep KatyRat motive is to delete this article, Article meet every requirement of WP. Article has well enough news coverage sources.
 * What you say, User:Green Cardamom ? User055 (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — User055 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Followed up on the few sources mentioned . They were all relevant and from reliable media portals! The boy has acheived more than necessary to have a wikepedia page! Nothing seemed fraudulent in the profile ! The page should definately not be scrapped.SCMite (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — SCMite (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment I have reverted my edits that were disruptive (for which I humbly apologize) by to make it a healthy discussion. Thank You! KatyRat (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know quite what's going on here with regard to the votes above, but while this article needs to be toned down significantly, it should be kept. BLP1E doesn't apply because the articles cited span two years and discuss multiple aspects of what the subject has done. The sources cited include multiple in-depth profiles by reliable news sources. agt x  20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly passes the WP:GNG with multiple WP:RS news articles over a period of at least 2 years, several of which are significant coverage. The 'State Award' alone might be enough for notability, it surely helps. Needs cleanup, but I see no policy-based reason to consider deletion. DES (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has credible sources of national as well as the international media, so there is no doubt in its content authenticity. Weditor123 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: The nominator, KatyRat, has been blocked as a ✅ sock of User:Sanjoy64. The creator of the article, Blackstallion55, and User055 have been blocked as ✅ to each other (❌ to Sanjoy64).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin note: I have undone the non-admin closure by User:Manojmukherjee. This AfD and article both seem to have some sock and canvas problems. That editor is brand new and this is his only action. This AfD is not clear-cut, need someone with a track record of good AfD-closure judgement, not an spa. DMacks (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ...who I have now indef'ed as a behavioral sock. DMacks (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ...along with User:Trishneet007 DMacks (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the blocks. However, Manojmukherjee and Trishneet007 are ✅ socks of Sanjoy64. BTW, I've also semi-protected this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ...KatyRat has been blocked, I think it's very explicit that User:KatyRat was just here to delete the article.  Researched  this guy, he has some really notable and reliable acknowledgements. I think this AFD needs no more discussion. Weditor123 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2015 (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.