Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shubham Gupta

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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Gupta

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

The concerned writer has a minor work of short stories. Couldn't find a realible source which says the person is well-knowned in his field. The article further says he/she wrote a lyrics for a song. Can't locate his peers or successors, if he/she had any. This is a true example of promotion activity. The links incorporated in this article are of organisation or school, not having his/her name on websites. Why does it have weblinks of organistaions? Is he/she office bearer of any institutions?. It is a true example of WP:SPIP. Fails WP:AUTHOR,WP:ANYBIO. Even if it is notable, it fails, 'Stand-alone lists'. Therefore the page should be merged to his/her releveant work, if it's notable which is obviously not WP:BASIC or else deleted. It is pointless to have such article. Drsharan (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Subject may meet NAUTHOR #3 -..have created a well-known work which has been subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -Sources, [1], [2]. I've not been able to find the multiple, though. I believe, there might be some more sources on subject and theirs work back in 2005-06. Well, we may re-create it on availability of such sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -Created by subject -User:Shubhamxxx.gupta and maintained by many SPAs, it appears to be failing each and every applicable Wikipedia's notability guideline for lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC or WP:Author. Have been unable to find verifiable evidence of notibility in line with WP:NRV and appears to be a WP:SPIP. Looking at the history there appears to have been WP:OWN issues with this article. Deletion notices have been removed on numerous occasions, see the view history tab of Shubham Gupta. heres one from 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shubham_Gupta&diff=497587530&oldid=495057908 the most recent lot of deletion notices (or attempted deletion proposal) start on 1 Feb 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shubham_Gupta&diff=645097704&oldid=643883362 (tks to Mike V for doing a semi protect to stop the continous deletion of the afd notice.) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Existing coverage is far too slender. Bad behavior by WP editors notwithstanding, if substantial coverage from independent reliable sources can be found, am willing to reconsider. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2015 (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.