Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umesh Kaushik


 * 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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Umesh Kaushik

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Badly sourced BLP. Subtle WP:ADMASQ entirely supported by sources controlled by Kaushik himself with no evidence of notability as a singer (per WP:NMUSICIAN), businessperson, filmmaker (per WP:CREATIVE), cricketer (per WP:NCRIC) or anything else really. Fails all relevant criteria and a WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. The tag says "some of the article's listed sources may not be reliable" but, in my view, none of them are.

This has already been sent to draft once and contested by the creator. Moving this back to draft would be move warring. The article should be deleted. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Source assessment - the coverage falls short of WP:GNG and no claim to WP:ANYBIO Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a helpful page of Umesh kaushik information. As soon as possible news source link connected.
 * If the news sources are not currently available then this violates WP:CRYSTAL and, at best, is WP:TOOSOON Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the excellent in-depth source assessment by Spiderone, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Spiderone  were kind enough to present such an elaborate assessment. It is clear that it doesn't qualify for any notability guidelines. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I think this is the most impressive case for deletion that I've yet seen. Well done, . No Great Shaker (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the nominated article has had a number of messy cross-namespace moves, so I have put a move protect on it for a month. I originally couldn't even find the article in question when I saw this nomination. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 10:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Blatantly promotional article with self-published primary sources, junk sources and the best sources are mere passing mentions.  Ravensfire  (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Patrolling CSD categories and expiring drafts, I see dozens of articles like this every day. I'm surprised it got as far as an AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG based on source evaluation above. And is also clearly promotional. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete clear-cut WP:BIO/GNG fail. is your err spidey sense tingling at the section of your Talk the editor used? Deletation is new, but repeated asking for "tag" removal.  Star   Mississippi  22:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * that editor definitely isn't new, sadly. I do sometimes wish that they'd take a day off so that the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Such logic. How dare we. Thanks  Star   Mississippi  22:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Socks? In an India film/music related article?  Inconceivable!  Ravensfire  (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Definitely fails WP:GNGDeathlibrarian (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No qualifying source in article, as shown by Spiderone, and I found nothing on Google too. Fails WP:BIO.  Java Hurricane  10:11, 16 September 2021 (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.