Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Bhatia


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ashish Bhatia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:ADMASQ article on an “angel investor” businessman and engineer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The REFBOMBING is a facade to create a mirage of notability. A WP:BEFORE search confirms their non notability and hits found are mainly in unreliable sources such as this & user generated sources which are not to be considered reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete article lacks the level of in-depth sourcing we need for an actual passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep His works have been covered by BBC, Yahoo, Huffpost and Search Engine Journal which makes him pass per WP:THREE. Also this segment from WP:NACADEMICS is relevant here: "However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements." Chiro725 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Ashish Bhatia is well known for his contribution in developing social media tools, writing books. He was mentioned in several well known sites so this article should not be deleted. --Hushraitloy (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, has done some notable works. May pass WP:GNG ☆★  Mamushir   ( ✉✉ ) 11:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the idea that NACADEMIC applies to this person is contra to the spirit of the sources provided which are all general interest rather than academic in nature. Timnit Gebru would have been an example of an academic working outside academia. When actually examining the links provided you have is coverage of the patent he wrote. All the sources provided are really the same story, with no actual biographical coverage of Bhatia. I have not done the requisite work to establish that he's not notable so I'm not formally !delete, but I challenge the assertions made, essentially without evidence or backing in guideline or practice, that he is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, lacks sigcov to sufficiently establish WP:GNG further indeed masquerded article, 2/3 is promoting anyway CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course there are levels of notability and there are outstanding examples with which we can not compare when it comes to assessing notability for a subject. Timnit Gebru is certainly more notable than Bhatia, but that does not imply Bhatia is non-notable. Also, NACADEMIC never says we need biographical coverage. In fact it says coverage about the work and achievement of an academic which we clearly have here in several highly respected media like BBC, Hffpost, Yahoo, SEJ etc. Chirota (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per reasons and sources indicated above. A handful of primary sources in the article should be removed. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - three reliable sources quote him, and that's usually my standard for notability. However, there's nothing other than a single paragraph in each source, barely mentioning that he's an engineeer and quoting him, interview-style. Reasonable minds could differ whether this is WP:SIGCOV, but for argument's sake, I accept that's enough. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.