Trichome

thcscience_admin
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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Bikhchandani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sanjeev Bikhchandani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks; Iamishwar (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think the Padma Shri is enough on its own to meet WP:ANYBIO #1: it's only the fourth-highest civilian award, and there have been over three thousand recipients. But although it's difficult to evaluate the reliability/independence of some of the coverage, I do think there's probably enough for Mr. Bikhchandani to pass WP:BASIC/the GNG. Here's some coverage in Mint, which per RSN is reliable for business in India. Forbes India has had two pieces on Bikhchandani, both of which were written by staff; although they're definitely uncritical, I can't really say that they lack reliability or independence. Here's some Hindi-language coverage from Asianet News, which appears to be reliable; Business Today has had some as well. There are many more sources out there, at least some of which likely are reliable and independent, but I think these should be enough to show notability. If someone familiar with the Indian press would like to explain why these sources are unreliable/non-independent/otherwise problematic, I'd be glad to listen, but until then I'm fairly confident that this billionaire is genuinely notable. Since the article isn't nearly in bad enough shape to necessitate WP:TNT deletion, any problems with promotion or sockpuppetry can be dealt with through the normal processes; deletion is not cleanup. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Extraordinary Writ, this is very difficult but there are good reasons why most Indian news sources are problematic. The matter is well explained in our article on Paid news in India but the essence of it is that most Indian news sources (a) accept payment for positive coverage and (b) don't disclose when they've been paid. Of the various newspapers we like The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU) and The Indian Express (WP:INDIANEXP), and we don't like any of the others. Of course, that's an issue because it creates a double standard: we like most of the sources from Western democracies. So we describe the US using US sources and Britain using British sources but we don't describe India using Indian sources. It's pure systemic bias, and it reduces the amount of Indian topics that we can cover, but I think it's probably better than allowing articles based on unreliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I don't doubt that we ought to look at Indian sources with a much more jaundiced eye than we do for sources from highly developed countries: although it's unfortunate, there's really no other choice if we don't want to be overrun by spam. But even if we limit ourselves to the crème de la crème of the Indian press – for instance, the twenty-some-odd RSN-vetted sources listed as reliable at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#India – there's still probably enough coverage to establish that Bikhchandani is notable: see [2] (The Indian Express), [3] (Financial Express, [4] (Business Standard), and [5] (Mint). And there is some coverage from outside India: not enough to establish notability on its own, perhaps, but still enough to confirm that there's some substance to the Indian coverage. The Financial Times states that he's "lauded by entrepreneurs in India as the founder of one of the most successful start-ups" [6], there's BBC coverage, and he's briefly mentioned in an American book published by Wiley. Your broader point about the problematic nature of the Indian press is well taken, but, at the risk of sounding naïve, I think there's still room for a nuanced attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2022 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sanjeev_Bikhchandani

Leave a Reply