Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kislay Pandey (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus has tended towards the arguments put forward by Missvain. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kislay Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:NOTRESUME. Not seeing anything that would merit overturning the previous AfD. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Enough sources to pass WP:GNG. The previous AfD was in 2016 and most events/sources are post 2016, this is not a case of "overturning the previous AfD". --John B123 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: quantity of sources doesn't inform a conversation about GNG very much. Which sources did you find were independent of the topic (not vanity press)? VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Added another reference. He was a part of major cases of India related to DHFL and Yes Bank scams so may be he is notable ( i read it in one of the articles i found) . Rest your senior and know it better. i am a learner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IK1313 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A well-supported and sourced encyclopedia article on what appears to be a notable figure in his field in his country.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources here establish him as notable at the least, and generally accepted as a "good" laywer in India. I think we should improve rather then delete. Arsonxists (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Edited the article to make it look more good as suggested by User:Arsonxists . let me know your inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IK1313 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I reviewed all the sources in the article and they are dripping of promotional puff pieces. I then did the usual Google deep dive and I found nothing outside of the already used rather promotional pieces. Sadly, some of these Indian news publications tend to take paid content and don't have to disclose it, and the majority of the content I found looks just like that. Being a good lawyer doesn't get you a Wikipedia article, neutral coverage in reliable secondary source does. The submitted photo of the subject wielding his brass knuckles of gold rings made this review of this AfD worth it. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Missvain. I also had a look at the sources and concur that they are promotional rather than independent content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for smelling of WP:SPONSORED sources. Of the citations that I was able to access not one had a credited author. Business Today, Deccan Chronicle, Asian Age, TSG credits "Our Correspondent", and NewsX says it's "Newsx Bureau". That, and the some of the same sources are cited 2-4 times. Without reliable, independent and broad coverage the article fails WP:ANYBIO. I smell "YourWikipediaBio.com" at work.Blue Riband► 00:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A great many non-notable lawyers play a role in highly notable cases. I am not seeing sources that would give me any confidence that this is a subject of encyclopedic importance. BD2412 T 00:25, 23 December 2020 (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.