Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Alam

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Alam

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

I initially tagged this for G11 given its former state before I nominated it but considering it was somewhat better before but still promotional and unacceptable, here we are. Searches apparently found some links with "Irfan Alam India" at Books, browsers and WP:INDAFD but nothing solidly better. Notifying the only still considerably active tagger RadioFan. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability just isn't being demonstrated here. The existing article is so promotional sounding I dont know that its worth saving if notability could be demonstrated. We see a lot biographical articles on "entrepreneurs" in the Draft space lacking in references to reliable 3rd party sources, this is no different. Claims here just aren't backed up and appear to be taken from the subject's Linked In page (not a reliable souce). The only reference in the awards and recognition section is related to reality show. Those which might help establish notability such as Business World’s “Most Promising Entrepreneur Award” are not footnoted and I'm having difficulty finding refs to support them. I did move the economic times article citation to a more appropriate place in the article.

--RadioFan (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Would also qualify for deletion as per WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per @RadioFan's sound rationale. Quis separabit? 13:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RadioFan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (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.