Prash Ladva: A longer version , for anyone wishing to read an account of all the cited references: There are apparently 17 references in the article at present, but two of those are identical copies of the same page on two websites.  Not a single one of them is substantial coverage in an independent source, and most of them fail both of those criteria.  The references are as follows.  Currently a dead link, but it is a URL on Prash Ladva's own web site, so it would not have been an independent source anyway: [2] .  Text posted by Prash Ladva himself on LinkedIn: [3] .  Web pages which don't mention Prash Ladva, and which even if they did are on the websites of organisations to which he is connected: [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] .  A listing on a government company listing site of a company owned by Prash Ladva; the listing doesn't mention Prash Ladva himself: [8] .  Another government listing site, this time for a school.  It includes Prash Ladva in a list of governors of the school; the only information about him is his name, the start and end dates of his term as a governor, and "Appointed by GB/board" as an explanation of how he came to be appointed to the post: [9] .  A page telling us that Prash Ladva's brother is proud of him: [10] .  Apparently two references on two websites, but they turn out to be identical; both of them say "SPONSORED" at the top and "In association with LinkMedics International LTD" further down the page.  LinkMedics International is a business belonging to Prash Ladva; in other words the "references" are advertisements, and indeed one of the websites carrying it, on another web page, mentions its price for inclusion in its "news" coverage: [11] , [12] .  Announcements on the web sites of organisations or businesses offering "awards", which include Prash Ladva as a recipient.  It's not clear to me how significant the awards are, but in any case they are not substantial coverage of Prash Ladva, and being on the websites of the awarding organisations they aren't independent sources either: [13] , [14] .  Further pages on the web sites of organisations to which he has a personal connection, including his own business and organisations he works for or has worked for: [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] .  JBW ( talk ) 22:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine .  JBW ( talk ) 22:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : based on the source discussion above.  I find about the same level of coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, please could you clarify why reference 12 (UK Top 100 List) is not "noteworthy".  I believe this to be an extremely significant accolade, as would many.  I think there has to be a clear distinction between searching for "significant coverage" vs "noteworthy" - as then there is subjectivity.  Who does this get escalated to?  In any view, this is only my second written article, and I followed a similar structure to the first article.  I will move onto creating the next one.  But I am curious about the question I have asked above.  Journalist0071 ( talk ) 00:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage is part of the notability criteria, and is about the depth of coverage.  As detailed above, the problem with the Top 100 Influential reference is that the depth of coverage on the site (i.e. his biography) is not in-depth (and I suspect it is based on the subject's own submitted bio), and that there is no indication (that I can find) of the significance of this award - other than the organisation and its staff themselves, almost all of the mentions that I can find about the award is either on winners' social media or the winners' employer's social media; I can't find any independent mentions of the awards.  There are a lot of 'Top 100 Influential People' awards, in many industries, and most of them would fail to meet the criteria on Wikipedia as reliable sources; in fact the only one I can think of which is considered a notable award in and of itself is Time 100 .  As to 'who does this get escalated to?' - the answer is, the community here... which is what is happening on this page!  Phantom Steve / talk ¦ contribs \ 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Journalist0071 , you're in the escalated place already: this is where notability is decided.  No one puts much stock in things like "being in a top 100 list".  If there were some significant coverage of him somewhere, perhaps something like the top 100 list would be enough to motivate an editor who was on the fence to ! vote keep instead of delete, but if that's all we have, and no sigcov anywhere, the chances anyone will make a solid keep argument are basically nil.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 08:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Although an interesting young person, I agree that there is not enough evidence to show that he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion, and the breakdown of sources above is a good indication of the lack of reliable sourcing that is available.  Phantom Steve / talk ¦ contribs \ 08:34, 29 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete