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 no consensus. Having been open for about six weeks, there is a clear split of opinion between "the article can be cleaned up" and "the article should be blown up and started over". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munaf Kapadia[edit]

Munaf Kapadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, largely WP:SELFPROMOTIONAL sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Munaf Kapadia has received international coverage in the BBC and in Arab News. He received significant coverage in major Indian publications like Business Line, The Economic Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express, and Mint. He received sustained significant coverage in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021.

    Regarding editors' comments about the article's being spam, I agree with KylieTastic (talk · contribs) at the previous AfD that "I don't see any reason to suspect COI here as the author has been around for almost four years and has created several articles India authors and their books." I reviewed the article and found it neutrally written.

    Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD about the independence of the sources, the sources include quotes from the subject but there is also substantial commentary and reporting.

    Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD about the article not demonstrating sufficient notability, per Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

    Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete because I was wrong to think Hindu and BBC can't be argued with. --hemantha (brief) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 20:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist (despite the fact that I !voted myself), because per the post on my talk page by Hemantha something went wrong during the last relist and this therefore didn't get queued for closing. Hopefully this corrects that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2022 (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.