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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Digraj Singh Shahpura

Digraj Singh Shahpura (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article created by a paid sockfarm. There is not a single mention of this man in independant sources. The sources are all obvious paid puff pieces, some duplicated word-for-word [1] [2]. Note that almost all of the sources are published on the same day (around 1 July 2019) despite him not having done anything newsworthy then, these are the same set of sponsored sources all our fake "up and coming entrepreneur" articles use. His supposed Forbes Magazine coverage is marked there as sponsored content [3] [4], being listed as one of the riches Indians is a flat out lie [5]. In short, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:GNG, and WP:HOAX. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Pinging previous participants: 4meter4, Eggishorn, Northamerica1000 – Thjarkur (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I said back in October that this was full of puffery but there was enough to suggest the subject was probably notable. I now revise that assessment. Thanks to Thjarkur for pointing out some of the deficiencies of coverage I initially though was in RS. With those now in great doubt, the subject no longer indicates significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The profile in Forbes magazine alone, which is an independent source, is a pretty strong indicator of notability. I’m not sure the characterization of the sources in the article as all paid for advertising is accurate. The nominator is going to have to do a better job making this case then glibly lumping all the sources as paid for/biased coverage because there are some immediately apparent sources that do pass the threshold at WP:Verifiability. Passes GNG based on the first AFD. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  It's not a profile in Forbes, it's an ad in Forbes and is marked as such: The pages slugged ‘Brand Connect’ are equivalent to paid-for advertisements and are not written and produced by Forbes India journalists. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete In order to preserve Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia we need to excise and stop those who try to turn it into their own personal money making pay for inclusion who's who project. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:14, 2 April 2020 (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.