Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basanth Sadasivan


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Basanth Sadasivan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Minor coverage in mediocre sources, but doesn’t appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism,  and Singapore. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Michigan.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Pseudo-biographies hits the nail with this quote:
 * If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.
 * The scattering of third party articles concerning (or sometimes merely including) the subject are not varied or in depth. Indeed the article must rely on the subject himself for such basic biographical facts as his birthdate (sourced to his Facebook page); his attendance and accomplishments at Durham University (his own Twitter feed); and his attendance at and degree from University College, London (his own LinkedIn account).  In like fashion his high school attendance is not evidenced by any third party source but by a listing of graduates published by the school; and his travel industry employment, by employer releases.  Further, lots of people have visited every UN country.  It may be a great personal accomplishment but is not significant enough for either a standalone article or a personal one leveraging on it.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete There is only a little in the way of significant coverage, and it fails WP:NSUSTAINED. There was a small flurry of news within the first couple of months following his arrival in Tuvalu. Since then, he's had some exposure as a source of travel advice, including one article in which he's the sole focus, but these aren't coverage of him. Largoplazo (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete As per reasons above. Not every world traveler, can get a page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per nom. Notwithstanding the fact that the article needs improving, the individual has had sufficient coverage in the media. It is also flawed that there is just one article where he is the sole focus as per However, it also appears that the article's subject appeared on a podcast by what appears to be the official Singporese News Channel (Channel News Asia) . Why this was not referenced at any stage of the article is hard to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.136.179 (talk) 7:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject has been in multiple news sources, including reputable heavyweights like Forbes, the Straits Times and CNN. The line determining what constitutes 'coverage' is a blurred one but at the end of the day his name, achievements and experiences are constantly the subject matter of multiple articles. Other world travelers with far less 'coverage' (e.g. Sal Lavallo, Jorn Bjorn Augestad) already have pages so let's try not to shift the goalposts based on our impressions of the individual page writers. — Teampkf (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The above charade is part of a protracted witch hunt by a group of disgruntled editors (namely @JohnInDC and @Largoplazo) who are unhappy at the fact that I did not accept some of their edits on the above page. First they opted to make unexplained deletions of sections of the article without discussing them first. Next they opted to post several threatening messages on my talk page (which have since been deleted) aimed at intimidating me into submission. When they found they were getting nowhere, they are now trying to get the article deleted which is interesting considering that they were so interested in the article previously and had so many edits to make (to the point that they engaged in edit warring behavior). A history of all these interactions can be seen on the original page’s history. It is important that Wikipedia does not condone such bullying behavior that also borders on harassment. Perceived “senior editors” do not have the right to push their way around an inclusive community like Wikipedia and attempt to use their “seniority” to intimidate others into accepting their way. Teddybrutus (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I already warned you informally about not assuming good faith and accusing people, based on nothing, of ill motives instead of understanding and accepting the perfectly valid motives that they gave. I also pointed out that your accusations were nonsensical. But here you are again, apparently needing to stick to your unfounded and absurd witch hunt theory rather than accept there are normal procedural reasons for this. Therefore, I've posted a formal, and final, warning to your talk page. You may be close to being blocked. Largoplazo (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I came across this article while using a semi-automated tool to review recent edits, and have no familiarity with whatever conflict you may be describing between yourself, JohnInDC, and Largoplazo. There is no "witch hunt", and you can see from my contribution history that I've not had any interaction with the page or with those editors pertaining to this page prior to nominating it for deletion. I'd recommend you focus on the page's serious issues rather than resorting to unfounded accusations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: While those advocating Keep are all low edit accounts (and the article creator), several do argue that the quality of the sources is adequate so I think it's worth a relisting although it might be closed early. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: This clearly fails WP:NSUSTAINED as stated above, and it's questionable whether there is even WP:SIGCOV (interviews with the subject do not count). In addition, I strongly suspect the page creator has an undisclosed WP:COI. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * agree with page creator having undisclosed COI
 * previously posted evidence linking page creator to basanth sadasivan (might be same person) and was deleted 217.165.56.63 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing in the profile strikes me as particularly notable. Agree with above comments re: WP:NSUSTAINED.-KH-1 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete there is little coverage of great significance, honestly. Article topic fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  (please OOUI icon userAdd-ltr.svg mention me on reply&#59; thanks!) 06:54, 20 June 2024 (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.