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. The consensus is quite clear that there aren't sufficient sources available for the subject to pass our notability guidelines —SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kumar (businessman)[edit]

Rahul Kumar (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unremarkable businessman, coverage all what might be expected of a man doing the job he does. TheLongTone (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be a fairly common name and quite a few individuals come up on a search. However, not finding much on the specific subject of the article. On the whole, just a run of the mill businessman, fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Respected Sir, Rahul Kumar has enough references from leading newspapers like Economic Times, Business Standard, Hindu Business Line and Reuters. I am surprised to see that it has been nominated for deletion, though notability was accepted by editor Ascii002 when he nominated the page for speedy deletion, the page survived the speedy deletion and notability was noticed by the editor.

Editor, TheLongTone nominated this page for deletion as subject is a businessman, this is not a valid reason when notable references are there. The editor Ascii002 had same issues and we added 5 links for credible sources i.e. from the leading newspapers and the links was fairly 2-3 years old. The links are not from press releases or any promotional type, but it is a third party independent coverage and a fairly old one, which proves subject as notable.

This page must not be deleted as I invested hours and hours to write it in a straight manner, it does not look like advertisement and The Editor, TheLongTone who referred this page for deletion has admitted it. There are no major notability issues at all. This will be unfair to delete this page when there are credible references in place. The subject is clearly categorized into businessman category only for the reason that it is clearly identifiable, having a common name is not a criteria for delete on Wikipedia, it will be unfair to delete this page.

This is a short biography which can be regarded under start category, the article has references from Economic Times, Business Standard and Reuters and all are third party written. i.e. covered by journalists. This must not be deleted, rather editors like you must be helping people like us who are contributing. I have tried my level best to comply with all norms, even references are visible. Please do not delete.

Another important thing, the subject was even part of the Facebook-WhatsApp deal, he valued WhatsApp, a mega deal which happened for US$ 19 billion. There are references given about the same which makes subject notable, as I have mentioned notability is not at all a issue. The keyword on Google search like rahul exhilway it results in 5760 pages which I think is fairly notable. I again request to keep this page and we will try to better it further. It is falling under all major guidelines of Wikipedia and must be retained. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article has references from top newspapers. The references are also around 2 years old and Google search with keywords like rahul exhilway fetched around 4000 results on Google search which are quite old and shows notability. The article must be retained. Premieredit (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)— User:Premieredit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Non-notable. PR Newswire is not a reliable source as anyone can submit a press release to them so Whatsapp claim is unsourced. Anyway according to this source, [1] Facebook was advised by Allen & Co. not Exhilway on the deal so don't see why it should be attributed to this individual. Google searches are not a measure of notability. Potential COI issue present as main contributor, Wikicontri1968 seems to be close to the subject. Cowlibob (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep The references from 1,2,3,4 are from newspapers like Economic Times, Business Standard and Reuters portal written by journalists. I am upset seeing that the editors are here are not seeing all references rather trying to prove their respective point right. Sir there's only one reference in this article which is PR, rest all 6 are from newspapers self written by the journalists. Please refer again, especially 1&2 which are over 2 years old and are from newspapers itself. This is really tiring to prove one point again and again, even though strong references are provided.

I do not understand why editors are not doing Google Search, if deleting is the only idea then why we should argue, go ahead and delete it. But you talk practical, Facebook WhatsApp deal itself has over 2000 results for Rahul, when he valued WhatsApp. If you search for Rahul Exhilway, the are close to 5000 results, well written by journalists. The problem at Wikipedia is that one editor accepts that article is notable and other editor puts the article into trouble for no reason. The editors who are now reviewing it are trying to prove themselves right without seeing the references in full. Only one link is PR, and all other are credible, why don't you just search on Google and confirm identity? Please I request you not to only do editing wars but something logical for understanding of the contributor. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a google search before I nominated the article(s) and it was clear that all coverage of this man related to what he did for Exhilway. The business gets coverage & is notable: Kumar only gets mentioned as somebody who works for the company. There is aonly a single exception to this, and it's really too slight to establish his notability independant of Exhilway. TheLongTone (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Dear (talk, the references 1,2,3,4,5 clearly states the contribution. This is not right that you want to establish some other image of a person independent of the company he works for. Bill Gates has image due to Microsoft, whatever he did was for Microsoft why do we have his article? The contribution of business people must be seen in conjunction with the company they work for. Sir, this will be unfair if this article is deleted, references are strong, Google Search confirms facts, but the only issue you have is that the subject is working for the company rather than for himself. Not a very strong reason for deletion, as company and individuals have different targets, company may sell 1000 products but there are always few people who sell top 20 products out of 1000 for sale with utmost professionalism and takes company to the top. When a company achieves something, people working for them also achieve something which is called Name, and I am trying to make a point here that working for a company a individual has created a name for himself, which is worth considering on Wikipedia. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I wasn't a wide-eyed innocent I'd suspect sockpuppetry.TheLongTone (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)..strikeout comment & duplicate 'vote'TheLongTone (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not since my system had some issues and I was logged out. I have signed the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontri1968 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted as per Cowlibob Allen & Co. was advisor to the Facebook - WhatsApp deal and not Exhilway, Dear Cowlibob I have said that Exhilway contributed to valuation and for WhatsApp, you are refering to a article which was published in February, 2014 and I am referring to the article in November, 2013 when WhatsApp got its valuation done from Exhilway, the article which I referred to existed 3 months prior this deal was even announced, this is what I feel is really notable as Kumar was part of the deal when nobody on earth was even aware about it. Allen & Co. represented Facebook as they were buyers. Please do not fix different facts together to create a wrong impression. I will be obliged. I respect you all for your contributions and support to Wikipedia, but right things should be considered as right only. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one 'vote', so am strikig through the duplicates.TheLongTone (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicontri please sign your contribution above or we won't know who to attribute the comment to. To the IP address above, please log in unless you claim to be different individual from Wikicontri and Premier above so that everyone is clear who said what. Oh I see, you meant that Whatsapp asked Exhilway to value in November 2013 but still needs reliable source which links this individual and company to the claimed valuation. Cowlibob (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are few notable links [2] [3], this article opposed to Exhilway valuation and was written by a independent journalist. You can also refer to this link [4].

All of the above sources cite the PR Newswire press release created by Exhilway so none are reliable. Cowlibob (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first one belongs to privateequity.com, no where on the article it is written it is press release. It is an indepedent source and a journal for private equity investments. The second one is from a article written by a Netherland based journalist, please see the name on the top, it is only the 3rd and the last link which is a PR issued when the valuation was completed. The first two are enough notable and the last reference or the PR is only referred to you so that you can relate the subject with the Facebook-WhatsApp deal event. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Private equity.com sourced Broadway World when you click through it goes direct to the press release [5]. The other two links the webereld link has are unrelated to Exhilway. The third link which is source for the 11 billion number goes to the press release again [6]. Digital journal link is again just the press release. Cowlibob (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! When a journalist is writing about a subject, he may refer to PR and this is the source from where they get information. The link which you are referring as webereld refers entirely to Exhilway where they was accused for valuing a company more than its assets. Please use Google Translate. Now, the final attempt from my side. I am now quoting links from Economic Times and Business Standard, which are atleast not press release and neither are linked to any.

[7] [8] [9]

All the three links are fairly old, and proves notability, all are from leading newspapers written by individual journalists. I have seen articles where one single coverage is regarded enough for notability I do not know why in this case it is only becoming editing war. In the articles mentioned above, you can find direct reference to the subject and sometimes individually quoted. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are wasting your energy. I remain unmoved by your arguments: for my part, I see that it is futile to attempt to explain why I believe this individual is not noteworthy.TheLongTone (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is all about proving what's right and has references. Please remember a liar cannot write 10,000 words of argument, I still believe all references are there. Without commenting on the last set of links clearly given from the newspapers, you are advising me to quit. Putting my point here is not a sin, I have references and if you have made up your mind not to clear this thing, I know I can't do anything. But this is a classic example of taking eye from the well proved points, to sooth the egos. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kumar is not mentioned in these three sources at all, but if we assume that "Rahul Mahotra" and "Rahul" (no last name given) are the same person as the subject of this article, there is still not significant independent coverage of the person as opposed to the company. --bonadea contributions talk 19:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per my comment above. --bonadea contributions talk 19:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malhotra is his last name which is not a compulsion to use in India, now we can't have religious discussions here, you can refer to Google Images and check if he is the same guy or not. By independent coverage, I do not know what you intend to say, being related to the company is not a issue at Wikipedia. The notability is there, the mention of the subject with his pie of interview is there. This is not at all a genuine reason. Please let me know how can I take this matter further with Wikipedia. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. As I said, I assumed that it was the same person. That does not change the argument, however. Please take a minute to read the policies that people link to, for instance where I said "significant independent coverage" above. Nobody is doubting the fact that the links are genuine, but several experienced editors are pointing out the unfortunate fact that these links do not show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I have contributed to [10] previously and I can confirm the Rahul and Rahul Kumar are same person. This is as per my own independent research. The links quoted in favor of Kumar are true and correct and he makes to many seminars and media coverage in India and is a well known figure. Notability should not form any problem here. Approve. Rnnindia (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)— User:Rnnindia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just to note, information based on original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Also, these discussions are done by the strength of arguments not by the number of people favouring so flooding the discussion with supporters is a fruitless endeavour. Cowlibob (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point but this discussion has reached a stage where the editors need a individual presence of a individual who is known due to his company only. Logically this is wrong as every businessman is related to his company or group and relies on its success for his fame. The 3 major articles, noteworthy has been referred but editors constant denial is resulting in suspicion that are they deleting article due to less references or long drawn argument. Ideally this should be approved however [11] should be deleted in absence of enough links, however Kumar has many to its credit and independent ofcourse. Please think again as such activities shatters faith of contributors. Rnnindia (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As other users have pointed out, the sources you have mentioned may help show notability of the company but not of the individual who does not seem to have had significant coverage apart from small comments in articles written about the company. Helpful sources in that regard would be ones where he is the focus of the article. Cowlibob (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you, the subject is covered and is notable with respect to the media channels he is covered in, all are newspapers. When the subject is employee with the company, this is very obvious that he will majorly covered with the company only, every company has its own way of presenting its senior staff. We have to apply some logic and agree that Bill Gates is nobody without Microsoft and so is Warren Buffett without Berkshire. The subject may not be a focus but is a part of senior management, as company is not a living individual, it relies on its people for growth, then in that case covering the subject where in the articles he is majorly considered and acknowledged and is holding a senior postion must be regarded, and the page should be kept. Rnnindia (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kumar has some notable coverages, however the same is linked to Exhilway but it does not mean that he is not notable. This is worth keeping. Wannabeeditor6 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is okay to earn fame by working for the organization. The article should be watched for now. Kumar is notable. Ascii0054 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The preceding two posts are by suspect-looking new accounts whose only edits are in AfD discussions.TheLongTone (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which two posts? Participating in AfD is a issue? What is so suspicious? I only commented after going through references. This is not a closed discussion where you are only allowed to comment. You are taking too personal. Ascii0054 (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak KeepDelete Subject seems to meet notability requirements (barely), but the article needs much work going forward.See below for reasoning. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be possible for someone to investigate the caucusing going on here? ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

This is what I tried to said. I have only tried to put my point that subject has some notability and should be watched for now instead of a delete. My comments resulted in suspicion that I am favoring the subject. I am newly introduced to Wikipedia and what is the issue with contributing in AfD? Suspicion is not a standard of Wikipedia. Ascii0054 (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply that most new editors begin by working on articles rather than participating in AfD discussions, added to the fact that several new accounts have seemingly been created to weigh in in this discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mere assumption. I have joined recently and you must allow time to start working on the articles. This seems to be a dictatorship where few editors are deciding on what new member has to do. My contribution to AfD is not limited to this article only, I favored what seems to be logical. If I have voted in favor of Delete it was then pretty okay since it was in lines with what (User:TheLongTone) has decided. Ascii0054 (User talk:Ascii0054) 11:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LongTone is just being perhaps unduly wary as new users have been known to be created just to "votestack" one side. Just to warn you that AfDs can be a controversial and difficult place at the best of times, especially for new users. You are however perfectly welcome to contribute to this discussion. Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand you have concerns but whatever I was saying many editors are saying the same. I provided my view which seems to be logical. Ascii0054 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my view on this, looking at several of the sources, seems this guy is a run of the mill employee of said company and doesn't warrant his own article per the multitude of editors above. Subject fails WP:BIO, therefor delete. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doing a bit of research the contributions for Ascii0054 started the day this AFD was created, same with several other contributors to the discussion. Pardon me for being forward, I see a duck. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I signed up on 18th June, 2014, and this page was nominated for discussion in AfD on 14th June, 2014. I discussed several pages in AfD and this was only one of them, surprised that new users have to now prove their integrity. Why it is being seen with so much suspicion when you yourself believe that subject has notability enough for Wikipedia, but needs further editing? I am surprised. Secondly, we must ask people to upload ID proofs which will make sorting easier!! And finally when this page was nominated for AfD the only reason (User:TheLongTone has given was that subject has a common name and subject has notablity with respect to his company Exhilway, no where it was said he does not have notability. My view was that notability with Exhilway should be considered as all successful entrepreneurs are seen together with their respective companies.Ascii0054 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep up with the discussion. Solarra has changed her mind and has wrote above why. The original nomination's crux was exactly that this individual lacked notability and had no substantial independent press coverage. Only Safiel wrote about it being a common name. Cowlibob (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a nexus among editors which is bigger than duck! The editors are once supporting the article and then suddenly changing their mind, due to private messages being exchanged by few editors to safeguard their egos. This is the 3rd instance where a editor changed its mind. This is a clear nexus and an attempt to keep their decision at the top. Something smells fishy here! Wikicontri1968 (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a chance to read the policies outlined in a previous response to you, yet? Those policies, and not editors' egos, are the basis for this discussion - why would anybody's ego be invested in the removal of an article about a businessman? The only person who has changed their opinion stated clearly which policy their changed recommendation is based on. Also remember that this is not a majority vote. The administrator who closes the discussion will look at the arguments that are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and judge what the consensus is. --bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found no substantial coverage of this subject in any independent RS. Such coverage as there is seems mainly to be stray quotes from his company's press releases/advertorial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references 1,2 and 3 are from leading newspapers, please check before you nominate. If an individual is working for a large group he will be covered with the company only. If you notice in all articles he has its independent quote with no other team member involved which proves independent coverage. There are only 2 PR out of 7 references all rest are independent coverage. I hope I sound clear. On this page I can work further, this must not be deleted. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2 include a quote only, not substantial coverage of this subject. 3 is certainly not a reliable source and could well be advertorial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you see that quotes are independent, this shows that subject is directly related to the project Exhilway has assigned him to do. He is not a labour but a head of global operations. The article must be kept as I am still working on it. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like talking to a brick wall. There is no signivicant coverage of the man apart from his activities for the company he works for, so he does not merit an independant article. End of story.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2014 (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.