- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 17:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Rohit Vyasmaan
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rohit Vyasmaan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO; no significant coverage of the subject. Ran a hate-site, that was blocked by DoT and the site (as a result) got some coverage, most of which consists of trivial one-liners. ∯WBG converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the coverage is not contextualized enough to go beyond news level coverage and there is no show of true notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete there are just trivial mentions about the subject in News reports which are not enough to pass WP:GNG. And this more looks like promoted article. Thus, it must be deleted. -- Harshil want to talk? 14:13, 22 October 2019 (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.
- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 17:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Rohit Vyasmaan
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rohit Vyasmaan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO; no significant coverage of the subject. Ran a hate-site, that was blocked by DoT and the site (as a result) got some coverage, most of which consists of trivial one-liners. ∯WBG converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the coverage is not contextualized enough to go beyond news level coverage and there is no show of true notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete there are just trivial mentions about the subject in News reports which are not enough to pass WP:GNG. And this more looks like promoted article. Thus, it must be deleted. -- Harshil want to talk? 14:13, 22 October 2019 (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.