Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Sharma

:{{la|Bobby Sharma}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bobby_Sharma Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Bobby Sharma}})

Biographical SShyu01 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

*Keep - looks like a biog written by a paid acolyte or ghost writer. However the reason for deletion is farcical. Can a passing admin close this as a snow-ball keep and not waste any more time here. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

:OK. I relent. But what other reaction was expected when the reason given for the AfD was "Biographical" ? What sort of reason is that ? The AfD guidance clearly requires that a case be made her for deletion and there is not an expectation that every visiting editor will read the article and jump to the identical reasoning for deletion. This AfD fails process , hence my original comment. It is also a lousy article but I would rather stick corkscrews in my toe-nails then re-read the article and all its references so No opinion  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, the source links are broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by SShyu01 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) The nominator can't vote in the discussion, the nomination itself counts as delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: The cites in the article are crap. This [https://law.duke.edu/news/5971/] profile in his law school alumni magazine appears to be the only profile of him. Lots of PR references to him, drowning out my attempts to see if he meets WP:GNG. The opening line need to be rewritten to say why he is notable if this is kept, his amorphous sounding current white collar job makes this sound like a WP:LINKEDIN page.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for now and restart when better at best because although it seems acceptable at first glance, this actually could be better and we'll wait for that to come. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - highly promotional article which seems to overstate the importance of the subject in many of the endeavors in the article. Other than basic mentions of regular business activities, can't see how he's particularly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable at all. The article is definitely promotional and is a typical example of paid writing on WP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.