Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tushar Prakash Rayate

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Prakash Rayate

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIGCOV, All the socalled sources mentioned in the article are paid promotional news articles. Their one company which is their whole work and its paid media coverage(Literally! all the articles are just copy-paste of the same texts) can not be considered for GNG. Nor for being a notable entrepreneur or for being notable educator notability, they are not anything. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 08:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 08:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 08:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can see, all coverage on him is featured/sponsored content and most have warnings like "Disclaimer: This is a company press release. No HT journalist was involved in the creation of this content." or "Disclaimer: No Asian Age journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content." Such content is unacceptable and cannot be used towards a notability claim. To allow such a thing would mean that anyone can have a Wikipedia article on themselves if they have enough money. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above. It is a promotional article. Eevee01^(talk) 17:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotion based on promotional non-independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one below is addressing the lack of independent sourcing. They seem unaware that verification of his existence is not even close to sufficient. Even to pass WP:BIO it is not sufficient, but this is really commercial promotion, and so the standard is WP:CORP, and it fails to meet any of its criteria. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marathi.Wiki.Editor. Spicy (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are significant reliable sources too which has no disclaimer or any kind of notice shown which states that the content is promotional google source here > [1]. —User:Marathi.Wiki.Editor (talk) 9:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep, After reviewing the article i have seen that the kind of articles which looked like promotional one have already been removed and only the reliable and authenticated sources has given, my view,. this article has no need to delete —User:JarvisLoog (talk) 9:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — JarvisLoog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have gone through the sources as well as some google search and also found that the person on which the article is written has verified presence on social media platform like facebook and in my view facebook doesn't give the verified badge to anyone, gives only to the people who are popular and well known... you can review here [2] —User:Jiolal41 (talk) 9:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Verification is not enough. Verification at Facebook is particularly not useful, considering WP:NOTFACEBOOK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed with you SmokeyJoe that the facebook is particllary not useful, BUT there are many sources i found on internet and that too states the authenticity about the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivloger (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you SmokeyJoe for escalating in-detail but being from the same state i can confirm that the article really talks about the well known personality, some articles might have the one which we might take action on and after reviewing the same i have seen that such articles as reference has already been removed, so we should keep this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiolal41 (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Jiolal41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have gone through as much as sources i found on web and it states that the person on which the article is written is well known for his work he is doing for the rural areas on his country and has already been featured on many TV programs as well for his contribution towards the society so we should keep this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivloger (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am in the favor of keeping this article as it does really talks about well known personality and has good sources to confirm the same on web —User:Reviewwikiindia (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Reviewwikiindia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per above entire discussion. i have reviewed the articles peace by peace and searched for relevant content and information then found that we can keep this article. Wikiforindia^(talk) 12:20, 30 October 2021 (IST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikiforindia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note for administrator: At least 5 of the accounts above voting to keep have been created recently and have no edits outside of this AfD and userpage. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note for administrator: according to MT Train i have created account recently but it really doesn't state that I can't contribute to the wikipedia and doesn't proves anything wrong me or any other new user has done. Wikiforindia^(talk) 01:06, 30 October 2021 (IST)
Note for administrator:, according to Wikipedia guidelines anyone can contribute to Wikipedia whether it would be a new user or old, only matters is the right contribution. i might be new user on wikipedia but i thing i have voted on the basis of the information which was available on internet and cross-verified the sources Aswell. hopefully the administrator will consider new users contribution and this will help to boost the confidence of new users as well it will be a fare trail —User:Reviewwikiindia (talk) 1:32, 31 October 2021 (IST)
Note for administrator:, Strongly agreed with —User:Reviewwikiindia as being new or old user doesn't matter to me either, we are here to make this place more useful and informative for the peoples around from the globe. also the another user —User:Marathi.Wiki.Editor has given google news sources to prove the authenticity [3]. so i do think the article needs to be available on wikipedia —User:Wikivloger (talk) 1:45, 31 October 2021 (IST) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Wikivloger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. El_C 10:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are spam and I can't find any better, hence failing both WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, these two SPI pages may be of interest given the remarkable level of interest in this AfD discussion from brand new editors. I've not bothered with SPA tags for the Keep !voters as it's patently obvious and the editors just need to be blocked to be frank. I have also requested page protection to prevent any further timewasting. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, new users might want to go through WP:MEAT and WP:QUACK § Variations. MT Train^Talk 09:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional context about a non-notable businessman.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: I just plain removed comments from Jaanvikwiki and Kickystar (diff). Might as well have less clutter. El_C 10:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another by Marathi.Wiki.Editor (diff). Upgraded semi to WP:ECP. Wow, impressive spammage. El_C 10:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And perhaps salt it too to protect for future. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with salting, especially since the first location for the article Tushar Rayate is already salted, hence why it was created with his middle name Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sockpuppetry is worrisome and the article subject is non-notable, per pretty much everybody else above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2021 (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.