Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.V. Rao

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 WP:SNOW. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.V. Rao

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

Largely unsourced and promotional WP:AUTOBIO that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to meet standards. Falls under WP:NOTPROMO. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC); edited 18:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This page used to exist at User:Lawyerdvrao, which was deleted twice under WP:SPEEDY#G11 and once under WP:SPEEDY#U5, unambiguous advertising or promotion and blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Two of those deletions were on the same day, too. See below. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The username, added together with the way the user signs their talkpage posts (several examples of that here), makes me believe it's being used by more than one person, which would either fall under WP:GROUPNAME or WP:ISU. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See also File talk:DVRao.jpg, where the user frequently uses words such as "we", "us" and "our", which could imply that the account is being used by more than one person. The file has been nominated for speedy deletion as a dupe of another copy of the same file, so the talk page might be deleted soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Stefan2: This opens up the discussion of if the username should be blocked because of this. I've reported the username on WP:UAA already for being a promotional username, but the page is backlogged right now. It might take awhile to get to that username, especially since derogatory usernames seem to get precedence over there. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G11 and/or WP:U5 as per previous notes. Seems to be blatant promotionalism. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @SanAnMan: User:Melcous already tried a speedy delete through WP:SPEEDY#A7, but User:Oiyarbepsy removed the tag because the article "Clearly includes claims of significance - such as a court doubling its staff because of a protest movement he led" (from the revision history here). -- Gestrid (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's WP:A7, but SanAnMan suggested WP:G11 and WP:U5, which are different criteria for speedy deletion. WP:U5 is not applicable as this isn't in the user namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Stefan2: I'm ok if you go ahead and tag it with the speedy. Seems we all want it deleted in one way or another. Should we wait for others in order to reach consensus? -- Gestrid (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGE OF VOTE: Speedy Delete and Salt: I found the person's Facebook page (not his personal one), and he has this Wikipedia page posted at the very top. ~~I believe this constitutes violation of WP:SPEEDY#G11.~~ I agree with User:Jytdog. I also suggest we filter and block articles with "d" "v" "rao" (in that order) to keep the editor from recreating the article, as they have shown they will do. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support a speedy deletion under G11 if someone were to tag it. I took this to AFD after a PROD because I felt with was promotional but perhaps not enough for G11. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll go ahead and tag it, then. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Page creator looks to be socking and copypasted this article to another title - see Dr d v rao (now a redirect) and User talk:Dr d v rao. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just redirected the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr d v rao for the other title mentioned by Oiyarbepsy to this discussion. The nomination statement (the only comment there so far) was:
  Does not appear to be a notable lawyer. While he was the subject of this newspaper article, other hits I could find were only passing mentions, which probably isn't enough to establish notability. Note that the article creator appears to be Rao himself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt - marginally GNG but obviously self-promotional;. delete and salt due to relentless self promotion including socking under named accounts and IP addresses. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Blatant self-promotion and no evidence of WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently, WP:SPEEDY is not an option for AfD. See User talk:Jytdog#D.V. Rao Speedy Deletion. I've changed my "vote" accordingly. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not correct. An open deletion discussion does not make a page ineligible for speedy deletion, but admins who speedily delete such pages should check the discussion to see if there is something in the discussion which invalidates the speedy deletion criterion. I'm not sure if this page qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G11, and it probably doesn't hurt to keep the page for the duration of this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If nothing else, having a full discussion makes it easier to delete the page again later if necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - As I mentioned in the duplicate article's AfD, this is a promotional page of a non-notable lawyer, who at best has only been briefly covered in reliable sources. The fact that he apparently has been socking doesn't help things either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The wiki isn't the avenue for self promotion --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Blatant selfpromotion. Thomas.W ^talk 21:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I realize the standard is to keep the discussion open for 7 full days, but is there any chance WP:SNOW applies here? -- Gestrid (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I just realized WP:SNOW is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:31, 15 June 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.