Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone Ahuja

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Ahuja

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

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a business writer, which is not properly sourced. Instead of actual references, this contains a contextless linkfarm of "external links" -- which consists exclusively of content where she's the bylined author of the reference, and contains exactly zero links where she's the subject. Wikipedia is not a free PR database on which a person gets an article just because she exists -- she must be the subject of articles written by other people to satisfy our inclusion criteria for writers or businesspeople, and does not get an article by being the bylined author of the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles like this belong in linkedin not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the book Jugaad looks like it may be notable so i might create an article for it, as Ahuja is a joint author, unless theres more "stuff" available for her notability, this article can be deleted (with a bit of info about her added there}. ps. work beckons so it will be a while. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page / resume. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 2 October 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.