Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anirudh Sethi

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 as the creator and sole author has been confirmed as a block-evading sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 21:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anirudh Sethi

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

Fails WP:GNG and also has WP:PROMO/WP:NPOV issues. Subject isn't mentioned in any of the references that aren't self-published. My own searches only turned up this, which at best counts as WP:1E. Kolbasz (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and even the self-sourced references don't support the claims (e.g. the claim of "seven books" links to the existence of one) - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a sockpuppet investigation going on against the creator of this article. GSS (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any references to Sethi in the first two links. The first link is part of the contributors platform of Huffington Post, which is entirely controlled by the contributor, and thus is a blog without any editorial oversight. Thus it is not a reliable source, but it also does not mention Sethi as far as I can tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As per nom. Doesn't qualify WP:NOTE Badnaam (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and Salt as this has been deleted twice before within close times of each other, clearly advertising and this alone, considering the same articles have contained the same exact contents each time. There is nothing to suggest actual substance here because none exists. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:PROMO piece. There are some coverage in WP:INDAFD search engine, here but they do not appear sufficient to help subject reach the GNG standard. Anup [Talk] 10:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for WP:INDAFD, I wasn't previously aware of that - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor references, some of which don't even mention Sethi and the remaining are either from Sethi or blatantly promotional. Nothing to indicate notability to pass GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 12:53, 13 October 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.