Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.B. Chandrasekhar

: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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

=[[K.B. Chandrasekhar]]=

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

:({{Find sources AFD|K.B. Chandrasekhar}})

Obvious accounts of self-promotion, if not anything but self-promotion. Notability very questionable. All references provided are lousy, non-existing, sponsored, ... or written by himself (what a joke). Most of his accomplishments seem to be around Jamcracker, which was deleted various times for promition, copyvio, etcetera. Midas02 (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete - It is pretty blatant :WP:ARTSPAM. As the nominator has noted, the related :Jamcracker article has been relentlessly spammed. "Assuming good faith" on the part of the article's creator would seem rather naïve. Anyway, there isn't a "good" article revision to revert to and no credible sources provided to indicate the subject passes :WP:BIO so I can't see it's worth trying to rewrite from a neutral perspective. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Probably has improper references to self published sources. Lead section has accounts of promotion. Advertising in the Overview section, Definetly promotional in every aspect. If enough advertising was there, it could be WP:CSD'd as G11. DSCrowned^(talk) 12:29, 13 November 2014 (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.