Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhargav Sri Prakash


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Bhargav Sri Prakash

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

Article is written like an advertisement and I have significant reason to believe this is due to large amounts of anonymous COI editing. I've opened a discussion on the COI noticeboard here

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

All existing sources focus either on projects Bhargav has been involved in, or are just lists of people which is not notable per WP:LISTBIO. Overall fails GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I examined the first 20 references. There is 3 interviews that fail WP:BLPPRIMARY, lots of passing mentions and several profiles, one of which is quite big but all of them are in relation to FriendLearn. There is no secondary sourcing. Nothing in Gbooks Google Scholar has an entry: but it is not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. Fails WP:SIGCOV.    scope_creep Talk  23:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I disclose that I have edited this article and related articles in the period of the last 3 years since i joined with a wikipedia account. I do not have COI as I have tried to explain here on noticeboard thread.

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

My opinion is this article could be improved instead of deleted because of following reasons. This living person has gained verifiable online coverage at least since 2012. Some articles describe him in headline as "pioneer", in the body of article as "inventor of digital vaccines", and in tables as "notable and renowned Indian entrepreneur", "notable list of alumni" , etc. This provides evidence for WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV. The flowery adjectives may have been copied in to the article over time which has now made it into an unacceptable promotional tone, which I think can be corrected with involvement of experienced editors. I myself have made mistake of language tone as experienced editor has pointed to me. For kind information, many students in College of Engineering, Guindy Anna University hostel and living close to campus must be editing CEG related pages, like even me when I was a student.

For consideration of others, I wish to list what appears to me as reliable sources such as; government of India journal reports, newspapers, channels that have editorial boards. Almost all of these articles are full profiles and not lists falling under WP:LISTBIO or passing mention. These are already in the article but not concentrated within first 20. They appear to me to meet WP:SECONDARY although I am not having as much experience. So, please forgive if I making a mistake here.

Following are potential sources which are not in the article, which more experienced editors can consider whether it can be added to improve quality

https://jmir.altmetric.com/details/94535502/news Pastacho (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment It's hard to know where to begin with this one - there are way too many references to check fully. But here are a few I did look at: 1) I cannot verify the existence of the "International Refereed Journal of Reviews and Research" (last reference). There is a web site with such a name but it has published only one issue and seems unrelated to the citation here. 2) I also can find no trace of the publication listed here as a book - which oddly has an ISSN. The foundation listed as publisher exists but I have failed to locate the publication 3) this person has published 2 or 3 articles, all with 6 or more other authors (may be normal for that field), and the 2 that I find in Google Scholar have each been cited only once. What this tells me is that it will be hard to know how notable this person is without looking at all or at least most of the references. I also wonder about the lengthy section on tennis, which seems unrelated to the focus of the article and could be summed up in a simple sentence: "In his youth he played tennis competitively." Lamona (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete There's so much chicanery going on in references. In addition to problems identified above by Lamona, punjabmirror.com, a blog, is listed as published by Bennett, Coleman and Co. There are multiple refs to scienmag.com, a content scraping site who have had their twitter account suspended. So many refs to self-published content. Two are direct wordpress/.blog sites. Screening for notable publications, all (Hindu, Financial Express, ET) are interviews or product announcements. The journal cites are to papers authored by the subject or about the product of his company; they don't even begin to satisy WP:NACADEMIC. Elsewhere on the web, Google news shows only product related hits. Most of the top search hits have been included in the article here and none appear independent. Hemantha (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * KeepThis article sure deserves an advert/POV/COI tag but I believe that we ought to make sure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Indeed there are unreliable sources wordpress blogs/lists that must be weeded out as Hemantha has pointed out but I have found numerous reliable secondary sources that provide evidence to satisfy GNG. After trying to unravel the spaghetti in this article (incl talk pages) - and having searched and studied the background references (which I copy-paste from the existing article to make it easier for other editors to dissect this), my view is that notability of this person is primarily attributed to accomplishments as an entrepreneur and inventor, not WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:ATHLETE. I must confess that I do not understand digital vaccines but I scanned through WP:PRIMARY the official CM website


 * His invention of digital vaccine and fooya health game has obtained coverage from many reputable organizations (which have editors/boards and authors). There is a trail of markers of evolution spanning more than a decade. Reliable secondary sources demonstrate synthesis of positive and negative news.

The strongest WP:SECONDARY WP:MEDRS is from a peer reviewed publication of a systematic review in journal of Global Health Promotion about the product he created. It has been indexed by the US National Library of Medicine. It provides findings based on an independent analysis by that paper's authors who have disclosed no ties/COI with this individual/his affiliated organizations or the fooya app. The authors conclude that the fooya program is more effective at engaging children as a result of gamification among evidence based cardiovascular disease prevention initiatives evaluated for effectiveness in an educational setting.

He seems to have won awards/recognition from organizations such as NASSCOM and Kauffman Foundation which have been mentioned in coverage from reliable media like Xconomy and CNBC Moneycontrol, which are in the existing article.

The intellectual property case with moderna therapeutics has been covered as a result of what appears to be an investigative piece by Firstpost - a fairly reliable secondary source.

These provide further evidence of notability that is not based on WP:PRIMARY interviews or announcements.

I think it is reasonable to assume that The Times of India, PTI , ANI will not publish an announcement from an unvetted primary source. I base my logic on the view that a non notable person or insignificant organization is unlikely to gain coverage of their announcement from a number of reputable media channels, particularly in the way they describe and attribute him as 'inventor' (listed as Editor's pick article, which is not in Wiki article btw).

Sources like ScienMag or Punjab Mirror undermine the article overall. I suspect not all contributors to Wikipedia are aware of these sources or their reputation (or lack of).

My view is that this makes him notable for his role as creator of the fooya program and as inventor of digital vaccines in light of the global prevalence of cardiovascular disease and childhood obesity.

In conclusion I feel that this article has existed on wikipedia since November 2013, Wikipedia readers would lose out important info about the inventor of digital vaccines if it were deleted when vaccines innovation is significant for our current times. I urge my editors to revert COI edits/inappropriate edits and remove the unreliable references, which I can also assistInfiNeuro (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Unless there are multiple independent reviews of multiple products or extensive in-depth reviews of the single product, they do not count towards the notability of the product creator. ToI ref is completely about the product. PTI/ANI refs are interviews, as the "he said"s at each paragraph show and not independent. Edexlive is an advertorial, so blatantly does it gush about the product. Med Dialogues is a republication of earlier PTI story which itself is about disputes about his "inventor" claim. FirstPost does seem independent and in-depth, but the focus there is entirely on his patent dispute, not himself. Hemantha (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Disclosure: I have edited this article many years ago at a time when I studied in Chennai. This person is undeniably notable. A simple Google search will give links to in depth reviews based on interviews and features by reputable channels about him his invention also company and product. The main reason for his popularity with students when I was in college and why maybe some young mission inspired young people "gush about the product" is because of the social impact purpose of the work. If you are not moved by children's health then one may look at it too critically for all the things that it is not. Children are a sensitive topic you know. If one resonates with the field and the innovation to address a clear problem in children's health then there is some thing here to appreciate I feel. I am recently a parent so this digital vaccine work is very relevant for us. Hemantha can you kindly present evidence of the EdX article being an advertorial? Not all positive reviews in media should be dismissed as paid. New Indian Express is a very reliable source if you ask me. Dismissing secondary source review reference based on writing style of the journalist is not fair I feel. I do not know what happened to fooya wiki page. One can see so many references including those listed here which show notability from reliable secondary sources for that product. fooya App has been featured on national TV channels like CNBC TV18 There are multiple reviews of the product that he created and designed. Digital vaccine concept itself is too good and it has many reliable secondary sources reviewing it like Brown University center for digital health Looks like some one has made mistake with deletion request in too much haste or maybe is this because of the huge anti vaxx pro vaxx sentiment I dont know. Kannukutty1989 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was asked to support my claim of Edexlive article being advertorial TNIE being a reliable (somewhat) source doesn't make whatever their parent puts out, reliable. Text like Wait, what? Bhargav Sri Prakash falls in the third category. Yes, he is probably the only one in that category., This app is going to be launched in schools here in India much to the joy of Indian parents who are going to bid adieu to all their parenting worries, at least with regards to food habits of course! isn't journalistic or WP:INDEPENDENT. For an instance of Edexlive promoting a fraud, see the one on "Drone Pratap" Hemantha (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with you that not all that one reads these days in media is high quality journalism or WP:INDEPENDENT. But I am not in agreement of your use of the EdexLive article from waybackmachine to illustrate point about dismissing secondary source review from TNIE. I have not yet seen any thing online about Bhargav Sir Prakash even remotely like the one you shared about "Drone Pratap". Have you? If so please share. Today would you dismiss positive reviews about any one in Forbes, NYT, WSJ, Time magazine because of what they carried historically (which were obviously paid/PR induced-influenced promotional articles) about Elizabeth Holmes? Chances are that most people will still trust anything they see on Forbes/WSJ/NYT but bash TNIE which goes to another conversation about double standard and inequity. I think as editors we can only form and express opinion based on face value and based on what is available in front of us. Unless of course there is clear evidence to the contrary of paid journalism. Tone or english quality of journalism is not a valid reason to question WP:INDEPENDENT I feel. However as humans there is no doubt that we all seek to confirm bias. Kannukutty1989 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't keep repeating that Edexlive is TNIE. It is not; it's a separate publication. It is in no way comparable to NYT, WSJ etc all of which would carry a correction or an apology instead of silently deleting their mis-reports. Moreover this is not the place to argue about Edexlive. Your efforts would be better spent in showing WP:THREE independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth. Hemantha (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Hemantha that there is so much WP:REFBOMBing going on in this article that we need to implement WP:THREE.  Actually, I would accept two compliant refs from the article supporters.  Note that the notablility of the person, the company, and the products are three separate things.  This article is a bio and needs RS that are in-depth and about him to establish notability.  That does not include interviews, company announcements, or passing mentions. SpinningSpark 10:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.