- 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. —SpacemanSpiff 12:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Anuj Gupta (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)
Non notable entrepreneur. Possible undisclosed paid editing - The editor has created articles for the company and has even disclosed to paid editing for other articles including for a product of the company at Talk:Adda52rummy. Most of the references are about the company and not about the person. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete- No independent notability, most of the coverage is about Adda52. FITINDIA 10:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete- Per Fitindia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Don't Delete - As a creator of this page, it is my opinion: Initially I created this page and 'deleted' mentioning 'not notable'. Then the content modified with reliable independent source which talks about the subject. Then Second time I uploaded this article and wiki admin reviewed and accepted that the article meets to be encyclopedic. Now, one admin feels it is not encyclopedic. I am confused. I have given sufficient independent sources. For any entrepreneur, mostly the third party sources will talk about the entrepreneur's company only. I feel it may applicable to all entrepreneur in the world. So, other editors and admins may once look into references, sources. I always welcome such experienced editors suggestions. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please forgive the accusation if I am not interpreting the edit history correctly, but it appears that you removed a speedy deletion tag despite being the article creator. You then replaced it with a tag that says it was recently created through AfC which it wasn't. [1] --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage - fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Don't Delete - User:CNMall41, Hi, You are right. I too mentioned the same. Initially, the page flagged for CSD. But, in that banner it was mentioned that you can remove this and put 'advert' tag so other editors can improve. That is why, I removed and added 'advert' tag. I did based on the guideline given in that CSD banner. After that it was deleted. Then, I collected sufficient references and the I developed article through 'Draft' section. After that I moved to mainspace by saying '(Uyarafath moved page Draft:Anuj Gupta to Anuj Gupta: I am the creator of this encyclopedic content. I finished editing. Others please improve and review it.) (undo)' [2]. After that, some Wiki admin only reviewed the content. Now, you guys saying it should be deleted? What is wrong with my side? please clarify. It is my humble request, if the article didn't meet Wiki guidelines, you can delete. But, one Wiki admin/moderator reviewed and accepted and others now flagging for deleting. It is totally confusing me. Thank you. Uyarafath (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize as I normally have patience with COI editing but I don't think I have much left here. You did not submit the page for review. You moved the page yourself so saying that someone "reviewed the content" is false. In fact, an administrator removed the AfC tag - they did not review or approve it - as the page did NOT go through AfC. This is a far cry from being "reviewed and accepted." The purpose of AfC is for an independent review. If you create it and then move it to and from AfC, this is the same as if you moved it to the mainspace without review. It also gives the appearance of circumventing the process. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi User:CNMall41, This is where you guys confusing me. I moved from draft to mainspace. After that, as you said, one admin User:Dodger67 mentioned "This article did not go through AFC review". Then after I get notifications "The page Anuj Gupta has been reviewed" by "Graeme Barlett" (only new page patrols/moderator/admin can review, So 'Graeme Barlett' is one such) . Once I receive this notice, I again looked into the article for any flagging by reviewer. But, I did not find any tagging. Then I decide it was reviewed and accepted. Now please clarify me, what does it mean "The page Anuj Gupta has been reviewed" and after this notification 'No flag' has been put by reviewer? How should I take this?. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Someone marking a live page as reviewed is different than someone reviewing a page through the AfC process. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia and if you are "confused" with the process of moving pages, I would suggest only submitting them to AfC going forward. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi User:CNMall41, This is where you guys confusing me. I moved from draft to mainspace. After that, as you said, one admin User:Dodger67 mentioned "This article did not go through AFC review". Then after I get notifications "The page Anuj Gupta has been reviewed" by "Graeme Barlett" (only new page patrols/moderator/admin can review, So 'Graeme Barlett' is one such) . Once I receive this notice, I again looked into the article for any flagging by reviewer. But, I did not find any tagging. Then I decide it was reviewed and accepted. Now please clarify me, what does it mean "The page Anuj Gupta has been reviewed" and after this notification 'No flag' has been put by reviewer? How should I take this?. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize as I normally have patience with COI editing but I don't think I have much left here. You did not submit the page for review. You moved the page yourself so saying that someone "reviewed the content" is false. In fact, an administrator removed the AfC tag - they did not review or approve it - as the page did NOT go through AfC. This is a far cry from being "reviewed and accepted." The purpose of AfC is for an independent review. If you create it and then move it to and from AfC, this is the same as if you moved it to the mainspace without review. It also gives the appearance of circumventing the process. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.