Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
KatyRat (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
KatyRat (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Line 39: Line 39:
*'''Keep''' Followed up on the few sources mentioned . They were all relevant and from reliable media portals! The boy has acheived more than necessary to have a wikepedia page! Nothing seemed fraudulent in the profile ! The page should definately not be scrapped.[[User:SCMite|SCMite]] ([[User talk:SCMite|talk]]) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Followed up on the few sources mentioned . They were all relevant and from reliable media portals! The boy has acheived more than necessary to have a wikepedia page! Nothing seemed fraudulent in the profile ! The page should definately not be scrapped.[[User:SCMite|SCMite]] ([[User talk:SCMite|talk]]) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
:: {{spa|SCMite}}
:: {{spa|SCMite}}
*'''Comment''' I have reverted my edits that were disruptive (for which I humbly apologize) by {{U|Green.Cardamom}}to make it a healthy discussion. Thank You! [[User:KatyRat|KatyRat]] ([[User talk:KatyRat|talk]]) 18:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I have reverted my edits that were disruptive (for which I humbly apologize) by {{U|Green Cardamom}} to make it a healthy discussion. Thank You! [[User:KatyRat|KatyRat]] ([[User talk:KatyRat|talk]]) 18:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:30, 22 July 2015

Trishneet_Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think so KatyRat (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recreation by a SPA Account. WP:CSD#G4 likely to apply. Repeated addition of advert content by ip, similar to the ones that disputed previous afd discussion. Sources listed have only mention of his name. Non-notable per WP:N and sources fails WP:SOURCE Only two sources that too local supplements aren't enough to determine notability KatyRat (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No much improvement after previous afd discussion where it was deleted. Simply a recreation again. Moreover the Ip that recently voted as keep in this discussion is blatantly voting on multiple afd without any justification therefore I removed that vote. Please refer to old afd as well. KatyRat (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted.
No clear justification. Sounds similar defending cause as previous afd. KatyRat (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is referred to striking off the above with a valid justification. If you think it's wrong, you can justify KatyRat (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The IP activity on this afd reminds the behaviour on its previous afd which was deleted post discussion. I would like other editors to have a look at the earlier afd and compare it with the ip. KatyRat (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]