Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvind Parashar

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Parashar (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 author. The edits by the article creator gives off the impression of paid editing. All the references are from associated sources. The only one I found from a reliable sources is this - [1] and it seems like a paid piece. Jupitus Smart 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, article is not made under paid contributions! I know and understand the policy of paid contributions, as I have mentioned in the talk page, Even I didn't find any Reliable Sources on Arvind thats the reason I did not cited not even deccon chornical the one you mentioned above. if this article is paid contribution I would have added more personal information which I think I have not added. I recently purchased one of his book and curiosity got me search author and i found very less information, so I did some digging and thought to give a shot on article. I dont mind getting it deleted. but I would like to add my comment as KEEP Vixhere (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources (and with it, notability) that is made apparent by searching. The subject seems interesting, but unfortunately cannot have an encyclopedia article if very few or none of its sources are of any real quality. Geolodus (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• New Reference Articles Added added some new references, which may be Press released! as the information in articles are only related to his books, but through articles subject is notable and gains significant importance. please go through the articles before you make your comment. Vixhere (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases and from non notable publications. WP:NOTINHERITED is what you probably were looking to read. Jupitus Smart 04:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing any book reviews. the one usable source is a profile in a regional (metro) edition of The Hindu, and it's not enough. Looks like it WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I take my comments back! even now I also think after reading last comment, as no book reviews are there though it could be WP:TOOSOON and I didn't noticed that! though I vote for Delete.Vixhere (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:AUTHOR - most references are links to sales sources - Epinoia (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2019 (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.