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 keep. The nomination has been countered with the provision of sources, although claims of promotionalism in the nomination were not addressed much in the discussion. The nominator has not commented on the sources provided later in the discussion, and the user that !voted to delete after the nomination stated later in the discussion, "I will not re-analyse further referencing, it's hard work". As such, it appears that the sources presented later in the discussion were not addressed by either. Conversely and relative to this, there is an overall consensus here that the subject meets notability guidelines per the sources presented herein. North America1000 17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete AfD is the correct venue, though this would normally be a speedy deletiin candidate, AfD provides protection against re-creation.
None of the references are worth anything in establishing the alleged notabiity of the gentleman. We have pasisng mentions, blogs by him, one that is 404 error. This smacks of editing for pay, so I have applied a warnng template to the creating editor's talk page.
The revision acceptd at AFC had a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion procrss (AFC brief to reviewers) so was a correct acceptance by the reviewer. Indeed no-one saw any problems with it for over a month, and after several more edits. I do not suggest we revert to that version, just to delete it
FiddleFaddle 10:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I have taken some time to analyse the references in detail from
this permalink current at the time of analysis
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Unfortunately this shows that the creating editor and I differ about the qualifty of sourcing. This is the level of diligence Wikipedia requires when assessing references, though it is not often formalised in this manner. I have not sought additional references. The onus is on those who wish to verify notabikity to provide those, so I ask them to use the same diligence
FiddleFaddle 18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Responding to above comment, I want to call out that the above post is not truly evaluating notability because the post is looking at links that have been used to prove specific points rather than links that point to the subject's general notability. E.g. The link to his book, was a link from a bookstore. The link showing his current designation is a link to his profile on a related website. Those should not be reasons to disallow his notability. However, I have taken a shot at filling a table proving that there are significant sources to prove notability and all with mainstream reliable media sources. With this I believe that the subject definitely meets the WP:GNG guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY and should continue to remain. In summary, the
WP:GNG guidelines emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject.Please see table below.
Reliability checks for both Indian Express as well as Press Trust of India (news agency akin to Reuters, AP etc. but focused on India)
Entire article devoted to subject being inducted into the Rockefeller Foundation with quotes attributed to key existing members and leaders of the foundation
Source is a named author independent of the subject
The Hindu is a reliable newspaper in India
Entire article is dedicated to subject and subject's actions as opposed to just a passing mention
✔Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Comment. Before I respond with the reasons why this article should be 'kept', I want to first answer the COI / Paid editing charge above. I have responded both on my talk page
User talk:Ktin#August 2020 and on my user page that I do not have a COI with any of the articles that I edit and I also certify that I am not paid for any of my actions on this site.
Ktin (
talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ktin, I accept the assertion made here and on your talk page. I have left you a personal comment not relevant to this AfD there
FiddleFaddle 15:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The subject of the article is a prominent business executive and passes WP:NBIO requirements as well as WP:NOTABILITY. Specifically, he has been the Chairman of
Microsoft India, Chairman of
Bank of Baroda, and co-chairman of the board at
Infosys Technologies amongst a few other. These are significant leadership positions. Furthermore, he has significant media coverage, over and above passing mentions. This meets the notability guideline as called out at WP:NOTE.
Some examples of coverage that is notable and are independent of the topic:
Quality Concerns - This can be a legitimate concern. However, the article has been written with WP:NPOV in mind, without making it seem like a WP:PROMO. However, if there is targeted feedback / recommended changes - these can be worked in parallel when this article is live. This article is a stub, or a start class article, and that can definitely be expanded.
Ktin, If you care to scroll up you will see that we have a different opinion of the referencing. I do not say, nor does the table, that I am correct. What I say and it says is that our opinions differ.
FiddleFaddle 19:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, these seem to have been added after my last edit. I am sure we can rewrite the table based on the ten links that I have just added. So, if it is a matter of augmenting these links to the article -- we can definitely do that.
Ktin (
talk) 19:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ktin, I will not re-analyse further referencing, it's hard work. I'll leave it to you to seek to ensure that the notability is correctly asserted and verified It is better references that are required, not more. And some may usefully be set aside.
FiddleFaddle 19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Summarizing my note: In summary, the
WP:GNG guidelines emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject. Please see the source-assessment-table (pasted below again, for readability).
Reliability checks for both Indian Express as well as Press Trust of India (news agency akin to Reuters, AP etc. but focused on India)
Entire article devoted to subject being inducted into the Rockefeller Foundation with quotes attributed to key existing members and leaders of the foundation
Source is a named author independent of the subject
The Hindu is a reliable newspaper in India
Entire article is dedicated to subject and subject's actions as opposed to just a passing mention
✔Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Comment While I imagine it will conclude too late for this deletion discussion I have started a discussion about Livemint in the
Reliable Sources arena. My opinion clearly differs from that of another editor. Consensus is required from editors wise in assessing sources for futire reference.
FiddleFaddle 07:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Without making this a referendum on
Livemint, I want to say that the
link / article being considered seems to be a syndication of an article with a named author by-line from
Bloomberg viz.
this one and not a press-release. I am assuming that just like with any other syndication, there are due partnering agreements in place - Nothing wrong with that per se. Now, if there is an assertion that the latter article is not a piece of original reporting, that charge should be attributed to
Bloomberg. Cheers.
Ktin (
talk) 12:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
T. Canens (
talk) 04:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891TalkWork 14:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I agree with
Ktin, the subject seems to an important person in Indian business circles. He meets
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO with or without LiveMint being treated as RS. However LiveMint is definitely one of the top business newspaper in India. His chairmanship of three companies itself is enough to make him notable according to
WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (Infosys is the 5th largest Indian company by market cap being part of both SENSEX and Nifty-50 index, Bank of Baroda is the 3rd largest Bank in India by its business size, Microsoft has a large presence in India due to its market size and talent). His departure from Infosys itself seems to made a huge noise in Indian financial papers. --
Roller26 (
talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: The stature of this fellow in India is significant by way of the corporations he has headed up. Infosys and the Bank of Baroda are huge institutions, and I find that this fellow passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I am not terribly taken by the references, but there are other - most significant reasons - to find this fellow passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG --
Whiteguru (
talk) 11:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I agree with all the keep arguments made above. -
Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (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.