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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpareet Bains[edit]

Gurpareet Bains (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)

WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR are not met. Almost all the mentions I can find in factiva are in low-quality tabloid sources (Metro, Daily Express, The Sun etc. ) and about his 'superfood' recipes which supposedly stop you falling ill, getting cancer and cure insomnia. I can't find any substantial coverage about him in high-quality sources. Not that it makes a difference to notability, but the article was also written by his PR agency: [1]. SmartSE (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now have a better understanding of the issue after reading this. The PR agency that wrote these articles and secured the media coverage used as citations specializes in writing feature stories and shopping them around to publications that publish them as-is under their own byline. So articles that appear to be independent, are actually written by the article-subject's own paid staff. That presents an interesting problem as far as being independent-enough to meet GNG standards. CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  01:13, 19 May 2014 (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.