Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Kashyap


 * 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 "Delete" comments have far more policy-based rationales here. FiddleFaddle and DGG's analyses are pertinent. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashish Kashyap

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Disputed PROD. Reason was "The references do not demonstrate, nor does the article assert, notability. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS." Indeed, the references are almost all PR pieces or regurgitated PR pieces. Fiddle  Faddle  16:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep "All referred citations are authorized and notable. Ashish Kashyap is a CEO of Ibibo group a company funded by Nasper. I think we need to re-look before to vote for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhyud (talk • contribs) 11:57, 15 April 2015‎ " copied from the talk page of this discussion and pasted here by me as a keep Fiddle   Faddle  11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have analysed the referencing in this version, the current version at the time of my analysis.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashish_Kashyap&oldid=656460623 is an interview with the gentleman. His words are a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY for valid deployment. My view is that this is a fail
 * http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ashish-kashyaps-steady-hand-steered-a-rocky-redbus/articleshow/38962224.cms is an interview with the gentleman. . Fail
 * http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/personally-tech-with-ibibo-group-ceo-ashish-kashyap-655649 is an interview with the gentleman. . Fail
 * http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/competition-is-excellent-and-more-than-welcome-ashish-kashyap-114033100022_1.html  is an interview with the gentleman. . Fail
 * http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2015/03/economic-times-most-promising-brands-2015-unveiled/ PR quote form the gentleman. Fail
 * http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/i-hate-being-patient-ashish-kashyap-ceo-ibibo-group/43716/ is an interview with the gentleman. . Fail
 * http://yourstory.com/2012/06/ashish-kashyap-ibibo/ Is Your Story even approach WP:RS? interview with the gentleman. . Fail
 * http://www.exchange4media.com/IMPACT-Digital-Power-100.pdf Passing mention, does say he was 57th equal in Digital Power 100. Is that a notable listing? Fail
 * http://yourstory.com/2015/01/goibibo-partner-google-flight-search-india/ Your Story again, and I doubt WP:RS. Does not mention the gentleman anyway. Fail
 * http://www.entrepreneurindia.com/news/Food-startup-Bite-Club-raises-500K-from-Powai-Lake-Ventures-6125/ Passing mention. Fail
 * http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2015/03/11/online-food-ordering-startup-bite-club-raises-500k-from-powai-lake-ventures-alok-mittal-others/ Passing mention. Fail
 * There is truly nothing notable in any of these references. There is not even a borderline reference here. Fiddle   Faddle  11:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, nothing substantial in the references to indicate notability (and YourStory is just glorified interviews). Primefac (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete company of trivial significance, with the refs amounting only to PR. This sort of inconsequential referencing to interviews that are just the subject saying whatever they like is not really independent sourcing. We have too many articles of this sort already, and it's time to stop it.  DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article should be rewritten for style but he's definitely notable. Head of Google India itself meets notability requirement. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be worth it to a little digging with something like this. All of the sources claiming him as 'Country Head' of Google India are primary, or derived from him indirectly. It's an invented title, and not the one he had; so far as I can tell, he was Directing Manager of Adsales for Google's Indian-side operation. A mid-level position on the corporate structure, and not one he kept. I'm honestly not sure if this isn't even a bit inflated, as I couldn't find anything about him from Google themselves.


 * Delete per the breakdown of sources provided by nom. Non-notable company. APerson (talk!) 01:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator, and per available sources. Even the most reliable ones I found are simply passing mentions. Notability can't be established in this case. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Keep  - All interviews have been taken by notable media agencies/news papers. These agencies don't take interviews of any one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhyud (talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 April 2015‎
 * Comment This editor's opinion has already been transferred from the talk page to this page. Their additional opinion is welcome, but I have struck the !vote itself, which may only be counted the once. Fiddle   Faddle  09:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a house of cards constructed from flimsy interviews etc, most of which appear to be PR exercises designed to puff the guy up. The Indian media is particularly susceptible to sycophantic exercises of that nature. There is no need for us to reflect such traits. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - While his company may or may not be notable, that does not determine the notability of the individual (so I didn't check). Kashyab is often quoted by the media as an expert and there are several sources available specifically about the man: .  While an interview is not strictly speaking a secondary source, if it is published by a reputable source it can still convey notability.  High quality news agencies (i.e. "reliable sources") do fact check interviews to a certain degree, so they are not strictly primary either. Problems with tone can be addressed through editing.  Pinging  who accepted this via AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is pretty much only one "high quality" Indian media source, and that is The Hindu. Everything else, include The Times of India, is in hero-worship mode when it comes to PR-savvy people, and the entire society is fairly notoriously corrupt at the levels where power and influence are wielded. We'd be better served by non-Indian media. I think we have had this discussion before: too many people involved with ARS cannot spot the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable one when it comes to India-related subjects. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need for your attack on my competence. I am well aware of what is and is not a reliable source, thanks.  Just because you disagree with my conclusion doesn't mean I am not competent enough to draw my own conclusions.   (And for the record, I am not actually involved with ARS.)  ... If your standard is "only foreign media + The Hindu count", then basically no one from India is going to be notable because that would mean a foreign source would be required in every case (since one source does not establish notability).  Most otherwise notable people (from all countries) are not covered outside their home nation.  Way to encourage systematic bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (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.