Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal/Archives/2012

Not very encyclopedic
Currently this article seems to be full of as many "big claims" as possible without regard for appropriate weight (or indeed, verifiability. It's important to remember this is an encyclopedia article, not the blurb for a book jacket.  I've done some rewording, but it really needs more good sources so we can tweeze out what is significant enough to publish (things like the school history seem a little trivial for instance). -- SiobhanHansa 00:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of unencyclopedic content and use of non-reliable sources
I recently made some changes to bring this article into line with some of our policies. Some of these changes have been reverted and some fact tags have been replaced by non-reliable sources. Since most of the editors on this article appear to have limited experience on Wikipedia I thought it might be helpful if I made a detailed explanation of why these changes aren't appropriate:
 * is one of the youngest and most successful internet entrepreneurs of recent history. needs to go as it is unsourced and peacockery.
 * He went to Independence High School for two years but soon after enrolled in Accel Middle College which allowed him to enter college while finishing high school.  Uses a source which is a press release, which is not a reliable source for a claim like this, nor does it show the significance of the claim - which seems, like much of the article, to suffer from puffery (or at least inappropriate emphasis of flattering but minor details).
 * He was 18 years old at the time. Also puffery - not necessary because people can do basic math. If this is the sort of thing that many significant commentators have said was notable about Chahal, then it may be worth emphasizing, but until then it should stay out.
 * Chahal is also a sought-after speaker, featured at conferences including Red Herring, JP Morgan, Bear Stearns and Ad:Tech.   His own company is not a suitable source to use as verification that he is a sort after speaker - this needs to be independent, notable third party claims (and ideally there ought to be more than one).
 * Under his leadership, BlueLithium was named one of the top 100 private companies in America three years in a row by AlwaysOn  again, BlueLithium is not a reliable source for this claim. Need an independent, third party source wich could be expected to have done apprpriate fact checking.
 *  received the greatest honor of Top Innovator of the year. The reintroduction of "greatest honor" is peacock wording and unencyclopedic.

I have restored my original Please discuss here before changing this back.

I'm particularly concerned that these changes appear to have been made by an IP address registered to BlueLithium. This article along with BlueLithium and ClickAgents and MingleNow, all suffer from similar issues. Could editors who are in any way related to the companies and people in these articles please check out our conflict of interest guidelines before continuing to edit the articles. -- SiobhanHansa 02:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the unsourced claims and some changes that reintroduced the issues above and similar ones (including unsourced discussion about what Chahal is starting now).  This is an encyclopedia article, not a promotional blurb.  If independent sources don't find activities or history notable, they are unlikely to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Also, I appreciate that Chahal's youth may seem like a good angle to highlight, but unless that has been the focus of independent assessment by noted commentators, it shouldn't be the focus of this article.  -- SiobhanHansa 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos
According to Eileen Koch & Company, publicist for Gurbaksh Chahal, all public pictures are available for use within Wikipedia. SiobhanHansa please do not re-do your change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.110.45 (talk • contribs)


 * Images must conform to our licensing requirements I will continue to remove images that do not. The say so of an IP editor (or even a long-standing, registered editor unless they own copyright) is not sufficient to establish a license and in any case, permission to use on Wikipedia is not an appropriate license for us. Images must be released by the copyright owner under a suitable free license or be in the public domain.  The repetitive adding of images with mis-described licensing is a hindrance to getting a proper free image on Wikipedia and wastes the time of other editors.  -- SiobhanHansa 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning btracking cookies
I have read the passage concerning Vandalism

As I see it this addition is not made to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. It is by no means meant to be crude humor or any of obscenity, page blanking or nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.190.96 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rise in media
This section is a crystal ball that has no reliable secondary sources that verify the assertions. Under the subheading "rise in media" it is also peacock wording. As it reads it looks like a listing of things Chahal's publicist would like to have listed when his name is mentioned. It is not encyclopedic. If there are reliable secondary sources that show Chahal is considered a rising media star my significant commentators we may be able to build a section off those sources. For now I have removed it. -- SiobhanHansa 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Violation by SiobhanHansa
All new edits have been linked to actual sources, including book and his television shows. Please do not constantly delete content about Gurbaksh Chahal as that is a violation of Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.156.17 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The content was not linked to appropriate sources and much of it was entirely unsourced. Chahal's press releases and other media relations are not reliable sources for many of the claims and fail to provide any evidence of significance of the point of view expressed.  The two links I include here are to our reliable sources guideline and neutral point of view policy - both significant parts of Wikipedia's actual "rules".  There is no Wikipedia guideline or policy that says content must be included if there is a link that says the same thing somewhere.  If you think there is good reason to include some of the content I have removed I'm happy to discuss it here - perhaps together could find better sources that could be used for instance. -- SiobhanHansa 20:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You can simply type in his name alongside Secret Millionaire, Oprah Winfrey, and any of the other names I placed and you will come across hundreds of articles that link to those facts as sources. So, why don't you do some work and put the content back in rather than simply deleting it. People like you are ruining the simple merits of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.156.17 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is so simple please do it.
 * I am not simply deleting because there is no verification - but also because the tone of the text appears to be boosterism and unencyclopedic with undue weight on minor appearances and highlighting petty details that no-one other than Chahal seems to have made an issue of. If there are good sources that cover both the factual side of the issue and the due weight side I would love to see them.  then we could edit the piece to be something more encyclopedic.  But my research really hasn't brought up stuff that's more than hype and I have asked over several months for decent references for this type of content so am reluctant to spend more of my time finding sources for somebody else's idea of good content.  -- SiobhanHansa 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Untrue statement
Statement below is not true, I remember Amitabh Bachan being on Oprah and other Indian Americans such as with the episode on Indian marriages in America which had several other Indian American guests.


 * Chahal was the first Indian American on the Oprah Winfrey Show. The other two Indians who appeared on her show were Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil and Aishwarya Rai of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.219.95 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PR Piece
This person is inundating Facebook with ads promoting themselves, and linking this Wikipedia article from their Facebook page as a primary source to prove their notability. I believe it should be deleted, but when I put a notability warning it gets removed.

An appearance on Oprah and making some money doesn't make someone notable. Has Gurbakah made any significant, acknowledged contributions to the field of advertising? Do they teach his methods in business school? Why should this article exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.168.240 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Content removal
IP 12.185.31.254 continues to remove sourced content from the article, mainly about University appearances and such. The content is sourced, so simply pulling it out as unnecessary is assigning value to the material, which is POV. In order to decide whether the material should be removed, an argument for why the material is improper needs to be made here, and then if consensus is reached for the removal, then it can be removed. To continue to remove sourced content without discussion is edit warring. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 14:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia content violations
Subject continually removes tags. Do not see what is notable here? Subject's methods do not seem to be studied. Net worth (if applicable) is not notable nor are "flash in pan" television spots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.78.197 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was already tagged for peacock phrases (advert) and tone. You removed those correct tags and added ones that do not apply. How and why does this article need to be wikified? You may not believe he is notable, but according to Wikipedia's notability criteria he is, having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You cannot tag the article as an autobiography as, according to the template usage instructions, only confirmed autobiographies should be tagged. The crux of your argument is IDONTLIKEIT. If you don't agree with the subject's notability you are welcome to nominate the article for deletion, however please stop Tag bombing the article with inapplicable maintenance templates. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

He received "flash in pan" coverage and not notable converage/contribution to his field. Added applicable tags. You can also add your tags and we can discuss. Do not remove my tags without consensus here or edit war.


 * I have already explained to you why the maintenance tags you are applying should not be used on the page. Instead of discussing each of the points I listed, you simply restored the incorrect templates. The article does not need to be wikified. You are not using 'autobiography' according to the template instructions etc. If you would like to get a third opinion, please do so here, but to continue to add inappropriate tags to shed a negative light on the subject of the article when you clearly are not neutral is disruptive. If you don't believe he is notable, then nominate the article at WP:AfD, but please stop tag-bombing the article with maintenance tags that do not apply. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 13:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that if this article continues to be edited by IPs to remove sourced content and add inapplicable maintenance tags, I will request that the article be semi-protected so that only registered and auto-confirmed accounts can edit. There are several outlets for dispute resolution, and edit warring under various IP addresses in order to blank content and add inappropriate tags is not one of them. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ponyo edit war
Ponyo edit war -clearly working with subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.31.254 (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with you is not the same as working with the subject. WP:AGF, WP:BRD, and don't edit war. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ensuring that articles meet WP:BLP and WP:V standards does not equate to working with the subject, if it did I'd be collecting cheques from the thousands of living people on my watch list, and I'd be editing from somewhere much more exotic. I've requested that this article be semi-protected to prevent further disruption. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to disagree -must sort out on discussion page. Quit removing my page. I have requested you be stripped of editor function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.31.254 (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A few points from your message above that require clarication:
 * Could you please point me to the policy that states I don't "get to disagree" with editors who are :violating our WP:BLP policy and acting in a disruptive manner?
 * Curious also as to which page you are referring to when you write "quit removing my page" above?
 * The request to have me stripped of my editing rights is...where exactly? --Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Subject has not made notable contributions to field, added tag, let's discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.238.89.170 (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you're back, and on the road again I see . The subject meets WP:GNG by a long shot, and your continued assertion otherwise has become disruptive enough that the article (and the others you target) have had to be semi-protected from IP editing. So, before you add the extraneous tag back, how do you believe that he does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? Because as it stands you simply appear envious or jealous. (Yes, there is a distinct difference). --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 06:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Content removal
As Chahal was born in India and came to the US on a Visa, you need to show (through reliable sources)that he no longer has any Indian citizenship. Simply removing the "Indian" from "Indian-American" without providing any sources for verification or discussion is disruptive. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)