- 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. ✗ plicit 10:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Saman Tabrez Ansari
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Saman Tabrez Ansari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Twice rejected at AfC before being moved into mainspace, this promotionally-worded biography is largely supported by multiple instances of a similarly worded promotional item: see the "By arrangement" item reproduced in Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle and the updated and even more promotional Outlook item plus a DNA India item flagged as "sponsored publication and does not have journalistic/editorial involvement". None of this indicates that the subject meets any of the WP:CREATIVE criteria; perhaps an Instagram influencer may meet WP:ENT criterion 2, but I think better references would be needed to demonstrate this. AllyD ( talk) 10:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. AllyD ( talk) 10:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
DeleteLooks to be a self-promotion/boosterism page, as per nom. User4edits ( talk) 07:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)- Strong Delete as per my
comments below
User4edits (
talk) 04:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dear
User:User4edits this is not a self promotion and I moved the draft in main article space and the draft was created by someone. So it is not self promotion.
I love to be honest (
talk) 04:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dear @ HariSinghw, I have replied you below. Hope that helps, User4edits ( talk) 04:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dear
User:User4edits this is not a self promotion and I moved the draft in main article space and the draft was created by someone. So it is not self promotion.
I love to be honest (
talk) 04:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep it's about an artist who is popular enough in Bombay and it is not about self-promotion or boosterism. I love to be honest ( talk) 10:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete 7 of the 8 cited references are paid/sponsored promotional pieces (i.e. not independent coverage), and the remaining reference is just an IMDb page. Not sufficient to establish notability.
Bennv123 (
talk) 11:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Deccan Chronicle and The Asian Age are reputed platforms and these are international news agencies.
I love to be honest (
talk) 04:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Commment All references all her page are Brand Media aka Paid Promotion. See the disclaimer in the Deccan Chronicle article, The Asian Age article is published under "In-focus" category, see other articles in the same category and you will get an idea about the nature of such articles, similarly see Outlook spotlight articles, the Mid-day article clearly mentions Brand Media, see the DNA India article which literally says Above mentioned article is sponsored feature,.... I am changing my vote from Delete to Strong Delete. Thanks, User4edits ( talk) 04:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Deccan Chronicle and The Asian Age are reputed platforms and these are international news agencies.
I love to be honest (
talk) 04:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Both the Deccan Chronicle and The Asian Age articles are word-for-word exactly the same. If these articles were written independently by journalists from these reputed platforms, do you really think they would plagiarize each other to that extent? No, the platforms are obviously just reprinting a paid promotional piece provided to them by the subject's PR team. The byline for both articles even acknowledges that they were made "by arrangement" (with the subject). Not to mention the Deccan Chronicle article has an explicit disclaimer that says: "No Deccan Chronicle journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content." Therefore these sources do not satisfy the notability criteria which requires independent coverage of the subject. Bennv123 ( talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N is not established. Agree with above resources are not independent. KSAWikipedian ( talk) 02:00, 23 July 2022 (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.