Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Ahuja

{{AFD help}}

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Rahul Ahuja}})

spammy paid for article sourced to obvious press releases/fake sources. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom. No reliable coverage and looks obvious spam. In fact it's a speedy delete for me. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – Spam sources, no real claim to notability. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep 1. Notable entrepreneur[https://tools.wmflabs.org/freebase/google/g/11hz4bg0k]), Actual independent authentic coverage with "generally reliable" sources like The Statesman,International Business Times,Zee News. Request experts to kindly consider.– Miffsseek (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• What is he supposed to be notable for? Apart from having 38,000 followers on Instagram. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• It is not just Instagram that he is famous for.He is already verified on Google, Helo, Facebook and his posters were officially posted all over New Delhi Metro Train for enabling and providing free of cost education to more that 14 underprivileged needy children from Delhi and Uttar Pradesh hence The page has been created following Wikipedia's guidelines and is not for advertisement. – Miffsseek (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment per WP:GNG. significant coverage in third-party sourcesPlease Check All the links are reputable. He has been featured into wide international reputed media and news(General notability guideline - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list and Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article ) and "significant coverage" in reliable sources which are already on wikipedia such as Hindustan times,The Statesman (India), Hindustan Times, The Hans India, International Business Times, Zee News and he meets the criteria of independent mentions in reliable sources.

and he's one of the famous personalities.This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics.

there will some of the mistakes in the content, but obviously, I haven't done anything which will prohibit the guidelines of Wikipedia. Miffsseek (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

::The Statesmen piece is not at all reliable, nor is the rest of it coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

:::{{re|Miffsseek}} Unfortunately for you, most of the editors here already know how PR articles work. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

::::{{re|The9Man}} I truly understand Wikipedians have invested a great deal of thought in the question of what may and may not be included in the encyclopedia. But, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia if the outside world has already "taken notice of it"( https://g.co/kgs/S28Wsj ) and if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. - Objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Sources of evidence include recognized reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Though I have edited the article during the discussion and removed The Statesman (India) piece as There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. I have even added it as a STUB and request experts to take that into consideration. Miffsseek (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. We need reliable, indepdent, secondary source coverage and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2020 (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.