Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Mehraj

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. CSD A7: No credible indication of importance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Mehraj

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

Fails to meet notability criterion per WP:BIO. The page has been recreated after being speedily deleted. The subject of the article does not seem to be notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. In addition, I was not able to find reliable secondary sources to establish the notability of the subject Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough third-party coverage for WP:BIO. Half the sources are WP:SELFCITE and WP:SPS. I also suspect that the new article creator is a WP:SOCK of the original creator - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danish.mehraj26. --Drm310 (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I tagged the article with the appropriate cleanup and notification tags. As Drm310 and Lemongirl942 noted, most of the references are either a YouTube video, or WP:SELFCITE "references". Seems to be a clear-cut case of self promotion, with all the usual trappings (removing templates, re-creating the article, possible socking, and a rather strange light hearted threat, if one could call it that). As already stated, aside from the promotional nature, SELFPUB, and editor shenanigans- there simply isn't the independent in-depth for sourcing the article, let alone a demonstration of clear notability. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for per same reasons as the article was speedily deleted last time, nevermind that the creator (and subject of the autobiography) was found to be sockpuppetting. LjL (talk) 20:41, 11 March 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.