Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Gupta (attorney)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Deepak Gupta (attorney)

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

Does not meet notability under WP:NPOL. Too few secondary sources Let&#39;srun (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) *Delete; agree with Ravenswing in full. It fails WP:GNG through sourcing issues; what more is there to say? Iseult  Δx parlez moi 14:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC) *Comment struck pending new source evaluation. Iseult  Δx parlez moi 01:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Keep - There were five references sourced. I've since added multiple additional references.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America.  Kpg  jhp  jm  16:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't meet the GNG, or any other notability standard, and it seems heavily promotional to boot. The sources presented are all primary, or are WP:ROUTINE namedrops that don't provide the subject WP:SIGCOV.   Ravenswing      06:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've had a chance to review the new sources and am happy to say that this should pass GNG. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 01:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources are more than sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which sources would those be? The ones that aren't primary are namedrops.  Have you uncovered others you'd like to cite?   Ravenswing      08:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

MIAJudges (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to clear up the differing opinions regarding the article sourcing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ... one of which I've just removed because it doesn't mention the subject at all, a couple of which are articles BY the subject, one which runs to the subject's law firm site, and another which is primary. You would do well to review WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP for a better understanding of what we need in sources and what sources qualify to establish notability.   Ravenswing      10:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of your suggested reading but thanks. For the record I already said I believe he was notable so I am just adding additional bio & references, not necessarily ones that would establish notability since as I said I believe he is already notable.
 * MIAJudges (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, you hadn't proffered any rationale at all, one way or the other. (points upward at your prior post)  With that, though, I'll ask you the same question I asked Beyond My Ken: which sources, precisely, do you think are qualifying sources to meet the GNG?   Ravenswing      05:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three publications listed as well as articles detailing him from Law 360, The American Law Institute & Law.com.
 * Have you ever thought perhaps instead of trying to get articles deleted that numerous Wikipedia users like to read, perhaps you can add some references & bio to the articles yourself? Wouldn’t that take less time then the back & fourth your going through? Would it hurt you to take a few minutes out of your day since you’re working in good faith to help your fellow users out by adding to the pages you’re trying to get deleted? Maybe try it just once & see how it makes you feel?
 * MIAJudges (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done it thousands of times, thanks. Funny that you talk about good faith, though, given that you put in a spurious headline in the Garnett article to make it appear as it were a GNG-qualifying source.   It may well be that time would be as well spent in checking all the times you've added sources to articles, to see if there are any others that have been made up.   Ravenswing      06:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have never made anything up on Wikipedia. If you look, I wasn't even the person who initially put the Garnett reference on her page, I just added an additional reference. Your constant deceptions & lies on the various deletion request & AFD's are getting out of hand at this point. I have replied to two of them on other pages tonight alone. One you claim you didn't accuse me of saying the Tiffany Cartwright page was back up because it was later taken down. A simple scroll up on the page shows you replied 4 hours after me with a blatant (I'll try to be nice here) false accusation when you knew the page was back up when I wrote the statement & was taken back down after I wrote it. And I won't even get into your vulgarities used on the Jennifer L. Hall deletion request page. Your obsession with me is getting out of hand & frankly I am tired of your misrepresentations, accusation, use of bad language & constant mudslinging.
 * I look at Wikipedia as a place for users to be able to look up information. If I see a problem, I quietly fix it & keep going. Just yesterday I was scrolling on the Eli J. Richardson page & saw a notable case listed with no reference. Guess what I did? I went online, found two references in under 45 seconds & added them. I didn't accuse the user of acting in bad faith or any of the other crap you have been spewing the past week. I didn't delete the case because there was no reference. I tried to improve the page by finding the references. I know I would have been justified in deleting the case without a reference but that wouldn't have made the page better & at the end of the day that is what we should be aiming for.
 * I am trying to be even tempered & continue to assume you are acting in good faith, but it is getting harder by the day. I hope I wake up tomorrow & see your obsession with having my name come out of your mouth end finally. The administrator for the Margaret Garnett agreed with keeping the article. I know that is not the position you were advocating for, but you win some, you lose some. Give it up. Log off the computer, go outside & take a breath of fresh air. There is more to life then losing a AFD request. I've won some & I've lost some but the one thing I've never done is constantly continue to keep going at it with another user that has repeatedly said they have given their opinion & doesn't want to continue a back & fourth so that other users can give their opinions.
 * MIAJudges (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but with regards to the Margaret Garnett, AfD, this is a relisting to garner further consensus, not an agreement to keep the article. I gather that you might be newer to AfD; this is routine. In any case, I see that you've made comments on fourteen AfDs. All are to keep in some form. None of the arguments put forth are, in my evaluation, based in policy. I've tried to help you out on some (Mehalchick, Garza, Crews) when I believe that current sourcing and extant coverage justify keeps. I hope that you see my tangible actions there in good faith.
 * That said, your success record is 3/14. Of the remainder, the Crews AfD is still open, Maddox and Gupta (this one) have been relisted, and all the others have been closed as delete or draftify by administrators over the number of keep votes in favor of extant policy, which follows deletion discussion closing guidelines. Generally, we want AfD vote alignment to be above 85 or 90%. I'd suggest reviewing our notability guidelines and closed AfDs to see how these policies and discussions work in practice. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 17:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to the origin of this statement: Generally, we want AfD vote alignment to be above 85 or 90%. I reviewed WP:AFD and could not find anything to support it. If this is true and dissenting viewpoints are now being disregarded merely for being dissenting, it betrays very serious problems of circularity and groupthink in our decisionmaking processes. -- Visviva (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not precise enough. By vote alignment I mean the alignment of a user's vote with the end result of the discussion, not alignment of all the votes in specific discussions. A high percentage therefore demonstrates understanding of notability guidelines and how deletion discussions play out. Functionally, an RfA candidate (stringent, to be fair) must met at around 90-95. In any case, 3/14 spells trouble for me, especially considering how most of the 8 deletes were closed as such at the administrator's discretion to overrule weight of votes in favor of quality of votes. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 01:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Iseult are you referring to AFDStats? Because these can easily be gamed. Just come in at the end of an AFD discussion and vote with the majority of editors and it's likely that you'll have a high percentage of agreement, even if you never post a deletion rationale more than "per nom". I don't think anyone should take AFDstats as a meaningful measure of AFD participation. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't; I went through actual AfD contributions, because there haven't been that many. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 15:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT isn't a sufficient reason for keeping an article. Let&#39;srun (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You may need to read guidelines related to the notability of people: WP:N (especially WP:GNG) and WP:BIO. Discussions based on policies and guidelines would be helpful. If you can provide multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage about the subject of the article, I will change my vote to keep. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added additional references on Deepak Gupta.
 * MIAJudges (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Keep Sources in this article are not independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage about the person per the source assessment table provided. Most sources are not independent, and some sources don't have significant coverage. (New text added 03:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)) I believe the article is between "Delete" and "Keep" because of four unknown sources and several additional sources provided by Visviva. I'd like to wait for another editor to evaluate these sources before changing my vote to "Delete" or "Keep". (New text added 03:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)) I believe that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG according to the evaluation of several editors. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. With respect for the clearly substantial amount of work involved in preparing the table above, it doesn't really provide much information if the analysis is just going to skip over the two articles that are (on their face) about the subject. I'll confess that I also don't have access to Law360, but the National Law Journal profile has been (for some reason) republished by Yahoo Sports here. It's not the deepest, but clears WP:SIGCOV's bar of being sufficiently detailed that no original research is needed to extract the content. Here is another NLJ article with a modest amount of biographical content. Here is a Washington Examiner article that would definitely need to be used with caution (RSP lists it as "no consensus") but does provide quite deep coverage of him (and I daresay independence from the article subject is unlikely to be a concern with that source). The great number of Deepak Guptas out there makes this one a tough Google, but I don't have a sense of scraping the bottom of the barrel for coverage here. Given that Gupta is a high-profile figure who has received widespread (if often rather shallow) coverage, I am also inclined to assume that the Law360 profile I can't read is in fact the in-depth independent profile that I would expect from that source. -- Visviva (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is the Law360 article so you can read it without a subscription...
 * https://archive.is/MyLRr
 * MIAJudges (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The person who loves reading (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Visviva. Enervation (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree generally with the source assessment table above, but regarding the four "Unknown" evaluations I have to agree with Visviva's assessment and additional added sources (though I would not rely on the Washington Examiner one personally) as well as the Law360 archive that WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met. Since he's not (currently) a judge, WP:NPOL doesn't seem to apply. - Aoidh (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2023 (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.