Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chirag Kulkarni


 * 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.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Chirag Kulkarni

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Sources are, in order:
 * A non-notable podcast run by one person;
 * A non-notable "Web TV show" run by one person;
 * A crunchbase entry, the unreliability of which is demonstrated by the fact that it was written by the subject;
 * The subject's own website;
 * The TEDx clone at a university;
 * A school newspaper (not university - a high school);
 * The aforementioned "Web TV" show;
 * The "Teen Business Forum" (of the 'web forum' type, not the 'industry forum' type);
 * BusinessInterviews.com, tagline "We tell your story to the world!";
 * An interview on some guy's personal website.

This, ah. Doesn't hold up to our guidelines.Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and salt Subject fails WP:BIO. As noted by nom, sources massively fail WP:RS. A Google search turned up a gazillion hits, of which every one on the first four pages were promotional. The article appears to be a WP:PROMO piece by not one, but three(!) SPAs. If these aren't all puppets of the same master I have a bridge I will sell you real cheap. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have referred the three SPAs to SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: As per above. There's no significant coverage in the secondary, independent and reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  12:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  12:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  12:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

To the following mentioned, these are my opinions;
 * A non-notable podcast run by one person- that is a generalization. What is considered a notable podcast?
 * A non-notable "Web TV show" run by one person;- This "Web TV show" has received a large amount of hits, and has done very well.
 * A crunchbase entry, the unreliability of which is demonstrated by the fact that it was written by the subject;
 * The subject's own website;
 * The TEDx clone at a university;- A clone? What makes you say that? I think it is clear who he is
 * A school newspaper (not university - a high school); What does it matter whether it is a school or university? It works either way.
 * The aforementioned "Web TV" show;
 * The "Teen Business Forum" (of the 'web forum' type, not the 'industry forum' type); There is no distinction. Just because the forum is new, doesn't mean it isn't industry
 * BusinessInterviews.com, tagline "We tell your story to the world!";- This is an extremely notable interview page
 * An interview on some guy's personal website.- Again, this personal guy's website has had other serious entrepreneurs such as Neil Patel on there. Neil has a wiki as well.

Of course, we can go on back and forth arguing about whether or not Chirag Kulkarni's links are notable enough, however, I, and many others believe he is of importance to be on wikipedia. I think we should take off the ban and proceed. There are many other people with similar links, and no one attacks them.

I don't think you can call it a web promo peice either. He is a seriously acclaimed and successful entrepreneur, who has done amazing things. Just because the SPA's are new, doesn't mean they should be valued. -Bobsimon232422 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsimon232422 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ironholds' assesment of the sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again I think that you all are making claims that the sources are not legitimate claims, however, they are as legitimate as can be. There is clear backing that the links are true, validated links. Deleting the page will not do any good as some one else wil upload the same page again, *especially because the sources are real and represent credible evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsimon232422 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, they're validated; the websites at the end exist. That doesn't make the websites reliable coverage, and if you think a high school newspaper qualifies (as seen above), you haven't studied our guidelines in any detail. If someone is going to upload the same page again, that's grand - if it still doesn't meet our guidelines, we can nominate it for deletion again - and if it's the same person under a different account, block them for sockpuppetry. The actual disruption to Wikipedia processes will be minimal. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The high school newspaper is one article. What about the rest? I don't think you can contest the reliable coverage. There has been consistent evidence that the information provided makes sense, and is consistent across the board. Those are in fact legitatime websites. If this was a problem of inconsistency, then I would understand. however, there are 8 different links, which, I believe is plenty. Just because one of them isn't Forbes, Inc, or some other business website, does not mean it is legitatime. I am not trying to be harsh, however, I do believe in this articel and its legitamacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsimon232422 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am compelled to conclude on the basis of your continually repeating assertions that are factually false, that you have not actually read the applicable guidelines for sourcing and establishing notability. Please see WP:RS and WP:V. You may also read WP:42 for a brief summary, although that is not on the same level as the actual policy guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2014 (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.