Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viral Shah


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Viral Shah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable film director, writer or producer. I spent some time on WP:BEFORE and failed. Your mileage may vary. I analysed the references in this permalink version:

Notability fails and referencing fails. This article is also flagged as UPE. Fiddle  Faddle  17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle   Faddle  17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle   Faddle  17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle   Faddle  17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle   Faddle  17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle   Faddle  17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * just a note that I wouldn't qualify TOI as "well respected" when it comes to areas that might possibly involve self promotion, as is the case here. The fact that they list no author is also very telling. See also multiple discussions at WP:RSN. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I bow to your better knowledge. How would you prefer I described them either now or in the future Ah. RSN entry form March 2020. Thank you for correcting me. Once learned never forgotten Fiddle   Faddle  19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * delete I guess I didn't really make it obvious in my previous comment. Praxidicae (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone  17:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete- per nom and above allThepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the source analysis, except I'd consider Outlook india, a reliable source for domestic issues of factual and political reporting. - hako9 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , "This story has not been edited by Outlook staff and is auto-generated from news agency feeds. Source: IANS" So much for Outlook. Vexations (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My gripe was the Not obvious. Benefit of the doubt maybe? under Reliable column for Outlook. I was well aware it is published pre-packed from IANS. Indian news sources are riddled with stories published as is from PTI/IANS. The important thing is they are clearly mentioned it as such. And multiple sources with same IANS/PTI story are counted as one. WP:SYNDICATED. The IANS/Outlook story is not independent/sigcov that I agree, that's why I made the del vote in the first place. The subject isn't notable is obvious. - hako9 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , When I ran the analysis I looked at content. Even if we judged the source to be reliable the fact it's an interview knocks it right out of contention Fiddle   Faddle  14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse. That's why I voted delete. - hako9 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (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.