Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirvana Chaudhary

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana Chaudhary

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

Delete because this article cites no reliable, independent sources; makes no attempt to conform to the wikipedia style of writing--instead it reads like a resume. Moreover, nothing in the resume is cited. There may be some claim for notability to be made, but the problems with promotionalism qualify it for deletion. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with everything written above. This article subject is dubiously notable and the article is SO poorly constructed, it's time to torpedo this. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 12:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's observations regarding lack of sources and the appearance of promotionalism. As to notability, there seems to be none other than whatever might have been "inherited" from his father or grandfather. So, even if the other problems were solved, we still would have a failure to establish notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious lack of notability--possibly an A7. DGG ( talk ) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, obviously non-notable per
talk) 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, I agree there is a lack of coverage of him, and a lack of significant coverage of him. Fails
WP:CORP, namely lack of depth. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now is likely best and there's simply nothing to suggest keeping a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 7 October 2015 (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.