Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Batra

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 speedy delete. G11, promotionalism, and there would be essentially nothing left if it were removed. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Batra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO, the sources used are poor quality including press releases. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many of the sources are not independent (based on press releases), some do not qualify as reliable sources, the few that can be considered reliable (Hindusian times and the Tribune India) do not provide in depth coverage. The first cites the subject as an example for a profession along with other professionals, and the tribune is a routine mention of an event. It is not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Also the article written by a WP:SPA seems promotional in its tone and contents.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as it certainly seems questionable even with the currently listed sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Virtually all of the references are completely unacceptable primary sources which cannot support or confer notability — of the 11 sources here, he's named as the bylined author of eight of them. But a person doesn't get a Wikipedia article by being the author of media coverage of other things; he gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage authored by other people. And even the references where he is a subject are blurbs or namechecks, not substantive coverage. And this tilts far enough away from encyclopedic writing tone, and close enough to public relations, that I strongly suspect conflict of interest editing even if I can't prove that outright. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came here from WP:BLP/N. Despite a large quantity of sources, all of them appear to be primary. I could not find additional independent sources that provided significant coverage (though there does appear to be an Indian army captain of the same name with a lot of attention, but they are clearly not the same person). Although I can say with some certainty that a COI was involved here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.