Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhiishek Mohta

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhiishek Mohta

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR as far as I can tell, WP:GNG unlikely with all these doubtful WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. Bonus: sockpuppetry. asilvering (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. asilvering (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- created by sock and is completely WP:GNG.TheProEditor11 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be deleted because it was created by a sock as it doesn't qualify for WP:G5. I tagged it as an WP:A7, but the nominator apparently felt it has credible claims of significance but not sufficiently notable per GNG.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam, fails WP:BASIC. Most coverage is the usual yellow journalism and churnalism only too common in the Indian media today. Java Hurricane 12:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's spam. Had the creator of the article not removed the speedy delete template, I'd say it falls under A7. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator didn't, I did. Someone in a media-facing job whose name is in headlines is absolutely above the extremely low "no credible claim of significance" bar for summary deletion. Doesn't mean they're notable, though. -- asilvering (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first three sources are YouTube which is unreliable. Every other source falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails as NACTOR and the sources assessment proves it easily. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2024 (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.