Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Rao


 * 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 no consensus. Between the sockpuppetry and the CANVASS'ing I am closing this AfD as procedurally flawed. No prejudice against a renomination where these issues will hopefully not be present. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Deepak Rao

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply put, not a notable person. Article does not meet Wikipedia standards, and my claims made by himself or Ms. Seema Rao are provably false. . Please see the talk page on the article for more information regarding these claims/statements. Feel free to tag me in any discussion. BasicsOnly (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BasicsOnly (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to highlight the deletion reasons above as well as all the reasons listed in This video — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)


 * Please see the following Sockpuppet Investigation  BasicsOnly (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There are enough references on the talk page. Being 1 of 5 Indians to be conferred with an honorary Rank is notable.Modyyash(talk)
 * That is not worth a Wikipedia article, especially when it appears he has gained such due to providing training to Indian Soldiers, while simultaneously lying about his credentials in the martial arts. I would request anyone observing this topic also follow the conversation located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)
 * In the light of your statements he was awarded the rank in 2011, and I am guessing he must have been training Indian Soldiers since approx 1990s given the facts from reputed news sources. So the source of lying that you claim as this wikipedia article was not present at all when the individual had been training the Indian soldiers almost 20-25 years back. Your statement doesn't hold in the timeline. Also could you please enlist the proofs of falsehood, a decision can not be based on what appears to an individual, but what the facts are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu231 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr. Deepak Rao did not need this Wikipedia page to make the many false claims he presented on his website, he has many webpages of his own, and he can also say whatever he wants using his mouth and write whatever he likes using his hands. It doesn't make those statements true, and also does not make him a notable figure. BasicsOnly (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a comment that we should not be doing any analysis regarding fraudulent claims here, and should only be basing decisions on what the sources actually say - even if, as individuals, we might believe them to be wrong. So if he's been awarded something, and that something would make him notable, then the article should be kept - even if we believe the award should not have been made. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * great to see you here! The issue with these articles is that if you remove primary sources and verifiably false information, there's nothing left of substance. They don't pass the notability requirement, or Hoax, Vanity, or Advertisement. BasicsOnly (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That may well be true, I'm just making a general point not specific to this article - I haven't examined the sources here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * please do so! I would love an impartial observer. At the same time, could you please look at the accounts, Edifix, modyyash, Anu231, and ssk1720? I believe them to be paid actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)
 * Also, please see the conversation located at the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Paid Actors? Has Wikipedia come down to this? He has been accusing and single-mindedly removing all Valid references right from the Indian army to the Bustillo interview. This is not a courtroom. The references on the Indian Army Website, Indian Media are enough to talk about his army achievements. And if you are telling me that being a Brand Ambassador of the Indian Army is not enough to have a Wiki page? Read this: https://www.newswire.com/prof-dr-deepak-rao-conferred-honorary/137708  talk)
 * Please sign your posts. You have failed to do so many times during our discussions both here, and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta. And yes, despite the melodramatic flair you insist on adding to the situation, I am quite sure that you (and the other 3 or 4 people that I spoke with on the Deepak Rao page) are at the very least very closely affiliated if not paid. Let's examine why. I will copy and paste several of the messages from there to here for better visibility. BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You forgot to sign your post. Interestingly enough, out of your 79 edits on Wikipedia since 2012, 61 of them have to do with Mr. Deepak Rao. I don't think that is a coincidence. Additionally, how kind of you to provide an uncited and unreliable article. Anyone can submit anything they want to that website and claim it as fact. I hardly think that Richard Bustillo commented specifically on Mr. Rao and his family, especially after I saw those technique videos. Additionally, it's convenient for you to say that the Bullshido thread is irrelevent because there are few users commenting, when the users commenting are presenting direct claims from Mr. Deepak Rao himself and his family claiming to be a Harvard doctor, Yale Lawyer, BJJ blackbelt, etc. All fabrications. BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How great of you to join us. You have had an account on Wikipedia since January 2019. You have 23 Edits in the last 5 months. Of these 23 Edits 19 of them are about Mr. [Deepak Rao]] and his family. The sum total of your other edits is just +840 bytes. I have many edits concerning Mr. Deepak Rao because most of his article is a fabrication. Additionally, I have passed 100 edits, but I suppose you were close enough. I have not doubted Mr. Rao's honorary rank of major in the Indian Army Reserves. It is just not important. As I said before it is hardly noteworthy. There are hundreds if not thousands of legitimate Indian Army Majors in the Regular Army that actually earned the rank from within the Armed Forces as actual military members, and few if any of them have their own Wikipedia page. I have, however, doubted pretty much everything else he has said, as the vast majority of it appears false. What is your connection with Mr. Deepak Rao? I explained the reason for my edits - because his article is full of falsehoods - what is your excuse? BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You forgot to sign your comment. Wikipedia editing is not rocket science. I'm rather decent at picking things up and have had the opportunity to see many experienced editors at work to include Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) and others. I invite any admin with permissions to do so to check my IP and see if I'm connected with any other Wikipedia account. I'm quite sure that they can also tell if someone is using a proxy service, which I am not. I am located over 5000 km away from India and have no vested interest financial or otherwise in Mr. Deepak Rao. However, I have never hidden the fact that I disapprove of the constant mistruths perpetuated by Mr. Deepak Rao, and I have publically disclosed every location in which I commented regarding this situation. My actual end goal is to improve the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu article to Featured Article status, but I can't abide a liar or a charlatan. What I find more curious is the fact that you are posting from IP, have only this one comment as a contribution, Wikipedia geolocate pinpoints you to Mumbai, India, and you seem to be very vigorously advocating on Mr. Deepak Rao's behalf. What is YOUR connection to Mr. Deepak Rao? Which of the other users in this thread are you, or are you yet another paid advocate? BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it is worth pointing out that Wikipedia geolocate puts you 13.2 km away from Mr. Deepak Rao's school, "ACADEMY OF COMBAT & REHAB CLINIC, Shiv Shakti Building Shree Krishna hotel JP Road, near Udipi, Andheri, 400053, India". Do I have the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Rao himself right now, or are you one of his family members? BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How fantastic to have the third person who creates articles for Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao in this thread. Of your 63 edits on Wikipedia since 2013, 59 of them have been related to Mr. Rao and his family. What exactly is your connection with Mr. Deepak Rao? BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And since you want to tag for their eyes on the situation, then I will feel free to do so as well. BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Have added Government and reputed news references for WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Requesting you to take another look. Anu231 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They don't change my view. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Other information: I have also found a previous successful Articles for Deletion post regarding a page Mr. Deepak Rao created himself for advertizing purposes in bad faith that also contained votes to delete the pages for Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao from several parties. Please see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Commando_Combat_System#Advanced_Commando_Combat_System,_Prof._Dr._Deepak_Rao_&_Dr._Seema_Rao
 * As well as another example of bad faith editing regarding the Rao family as well as another historic suggested deletion request for Deepak Rao and Seema Rao:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_commando_combat_system_(2nd_nomination)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof.Dr.Deepak_Rao_%26_Dr._Seema_Rao — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Independent of anything else, the lead image was a falsified digital alteration partially from here. No confidence. —Cryptic 13:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * that's great investigative work! What was altered about it? I didn't notice anything with the image when it was in the article, and it no longer exists. BasicsOnly (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A different photo of the center figure was edited in. (I guess he didn't look happy enough?) —Cryptic 14:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have no particular interest in this AfD, but there are some serious WP:CANVASS violations going on on my talk page regarding it, by and . Permalink: . Both editors appear to have done the same thing on several other talk pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry if I bothered you. My understanding of WP:CANVASS was that this would constitute limited posting because Anu231 already requested your input and attempted to bias your opinion towards the subject. In return, I attempted to present the surrounding information regarding the topic. As I said before in the message I wrote to you, "I do not ask you to agree with me, I just want to provide this information for you to view as Anu231 has already addressed you regarding this topic with their version of events." Please let me know if this is a violation of some sort and I won't do it in the future. I'm a rather new editor, so I will enjoy learning from your expertise. BasicsOnly (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are many things going on here, including canvassing, possible COI, BLP... It's taken a lot of my time recently. It seems likely that connections of the subject have added non-encyclopedic information to this article and a related one previously deleted. But that's not the question here. The article currently contains adequate claims of notability IMO. If these are false they should be removed, if unsourced they should be either sourced or removed. But I strongly suggest that should not edit the article. Gutting it would prove nothing. Raise any relevant points on the article talk page. If no claim to notability can be adequately sourced, then PROD the article. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , how can you ask an article at AFD to be prodded? There are enough arguments for Keep on this page, to automatically invalidate any future notability-based-speedy/prod deletion proposals. With all due respect, this is not an A7 debate. AFD doesn't go by adequate claims of notability and postpone the evaluation of claims and sources for later. It should discuss the available sources and decide whether they support any of the SNGs or the GNG, now.Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence to which you are objecting reads If no claim to notability can be adequately sourced, then PROD the article. (emphasis as above) Is that correct? As you have now demonstrated that there are well-sourced claims to notability (thank you, I thought that would turn out to be the case), I really don't see the problem. Perhaps I should have bolded the If. As a logician, it seemed to me that bolding the then more than adequately highlighted the conditional nature of the PROD suggestion, but I seem to have been wrong in that assumption. Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that your conditional is universally inaccurate (it would be accurate in other contexts), but AFD is where the buck stops. What it gives, is a community decision, which can not be overridden except by another. An article kept by an AFD does not qualify for CSD or PROD (WP:PRODNOM). Moreover, PROD is for uncontroversial deletions (Modyyash and Anu231 have made comments above suggesting they object to deletion which remain valid unless it is established they were evading a block/ban at the time of making them). PROD is also a weak deletion; anyone, including the page author can DEPROD, or if they miss it, refund the article at any future time with a technical request.Personally speaking, though "if...then" is acceptable and perhaps even necessary in how most of the computer programming is currently done, the "then" is redundant in natural language. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point regarding PRODNOM, and it would have been good for you to have linked to that before... I was indeed forgetting those details and have now done some needed revision! It still seems to me that it would have been be good to allow a PROD (or even a technical deletion) if this AfD had reached a consensus that this was appropriate and had foreshadowed it, but you're quite right, the rules don't allow for this, so another AfD would have been best. Academic now. As to your remarks on logic... As you yourself say, English doesn't work quite the way that computer languages do. I still think my construction was perfectly clear and reasonable, but you're right, it failed to communicate. I'll try to do better. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep--Wikipedia is not in the business of Righting great wrongs, perceived or real. Whatever the affiliations and motivations of editors who have previously edited Rao-related pages, and whatever the extent of Rao's actual contributions/credentials, Wikipedia can only reflected what reliable sources have covered, and the article in its current state is nearly there. I looked at all the sources; most if not all, appear generally reliable. Most, but not all, of the coverage is based on the press-release the Army released of his commissioning as Honorary Major. I have removed multiple such pieces published in reputable press, for being redundant. He meets the coverage requirement of WP:GNG, in my opinion. The achievements, as listed in the aforementioned press release, may even arguably meet WP:ANYBIO #1 and #2. Those who have reservations will just have to wait for the reliable sources to catch up to their version of the Truth. Simply put, there are sources considered generally reliable backing up the claims made in the article; the nom and their arguments have none. Disclosure: I was asked by BasicsOnly to look at the discussions, after I reverted one of their edits. I was already watching the article and the AFD. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Seema Rao. The only concrete claim to notability is the honorary rank granted in the Indian Territorial Army, which did garner some coverage perhaps due to the two A-listers M.S. Dhoni and Abhinav Bindra being given honorary ranks at the same time. Other than that the coverage has been pretty thin, often in apprently self-issued press-releases (note how this PR differs from the Government of India's press-release); city supplement sections on Indian publications, which are often the outlet for non-fact-checked, soft and even paid-content; and, trivial mentions in news articles about other subjects. Once the article is culled of poorly-sourced, redundant and excessively self-serving material (as done recently by ), there is little to nothing that won't inevitably be covered in the related article on Seema Rao, Deepak's wife and collaborator, who is marginally more notable (although that article too needs significant clean-up).
 * Secondarily, note that the this article/subject have been target of significant on-wiki promotion by a group of SPA's and sock-accounts for more than a decade. The tactics used included image manipulation as pointed out by ; creating a dedicated site solely to host related images along with a (dubious) free-license and re-creation of numerous related articles, including:
 * Deepak Rao and Seema Rao currently at AFDs
 * (related AFD)
 * (related AFD)
 * (related AFD)
 * (related AFD)
 * There are indications of similar off-wiki information manipulation, which I won't detail since it is unnecessary for this AFD and will raise BLP issues. The main point being that we need to be careful to maintain strict sourcing standards for this topic-area and be on the lookout for promotional/COI editing. Lastly, like many participants here, I too was informed of this AFD by and later approached by  (see my talkpage + this BLP warning I issued) but, in my view, the main effect of the canvassing was getting more (uninvolved) eyes on the articles and this AFD rather than bending the discussion or result in any particular direction. Abecedare (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (related AFD)
 * There are indications of similar off-wiki information manipulation, which I won't detail since it is unnecessary for this AFD and will raise BLP issues. The main point being that we need to be careful to maintain strict sourcing standards for this topic-area and be on the lookout for promotional/COI editing. Lastly, like many participants here, I too was informed of this AFD by and later approached by  (see my talkpage + this BLP warning I issued) but, in my view, the main effect of the canvassing was getting more (uninvolved) eyes on the articles and this AFD rather than bending the discussion or result in any particular direction. Abecedare (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I do not consider being given an honorary title of Major sufficient for notability. I was thinking more of "inventing a form of combat technique that was adopted by the fifth largest military in the world". Could you analyse the strength of that claim? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that an honorary major title (just like honorary PhDs etc) are indication that someone might be notable, rather than notable by themselves. Furthermore, the honorary rank is in the Indian Territorial Army, which is a non-professional force of part-time volunteers.
 * As for "inventing a form of combat technique" and "adopted by the fifth largest military in the world": both are pretty amorphous claims because there is no real standard for what qualifies as a 'new combat technique' or 'adoption by Indian army'. And, the "... fifth largest military in the world" verbiage is pure promotional fluff just as was the case with previous versions of the article name-dropping Dhoni, Bindra (including his Olympic Gold medal!) and President Kovind, which you cleared up. Can someone point to the exact source for these specific claims? I recall seeing stuff like that (and, much more hagiographical and dubious claims) in some of the promotional web-bios that are completely untrustworthy but don't recall if it was repeated in any reputable source. Abecedare (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have seen multiple pieces saying the couple came up with the new reflex shooting system, but the instagram post from the President of India, the citation to which has now been removed from the article, is the only one I recall, that also says it has benefited the army. Since it's not Donald Trump, I figured it's credible enough. Top result when I tried googling was this from newindianexpress with a "Seema Rao" byline which you'd never guess reading the high praise in third person. Perhaps, you are more closer to the mark with the impossibility of determining if anything at all is independent or secondary with regard to Mr. Rao. Found nothing from the Hindu or the Indian Express. That, I guess, leaves us with the PoI's Instagram. My assumption remains that the post reflects the briefing the office received from whoever recommends the list of awardees, which in turn would have to have come from the Indian Army. Room for error, yes, but also good enough, as far as Wikipedia cares, IMO. If it turns out the PoI was duped, we could always write about that, then. for one, obviously doesn't share my confidence. So, that leaves you to break the tie. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course when I suggested you analyse the strength of the claim, I was hoping you'd yourself take a shot at trying to find out if there's reliable secondary sources backing it up. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not see any reason to accept that Instagram post as a reliable source, no. It doesn't even have a caption. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The account's OP is at the top of the comments—"President Kovind presented Nari Shakti Puraskar 2018 to Dr Seema Rao, the first and only woman commando trainer in India. She has trained over 15,000 soldiers from Indian Army, Navy, Air, Paramilitary Police, NSG, ITBP, SVP, NPA Commando Wing SFF & Para Special forces, free of cost. She along with her husband invented an indigenous method of reflex shooting, which is known as the Rao System of Reflex Fire which has benefitted the Indian Army. She is also a combat shooting instructor, a firefighter, a scuba diver, an HMI medalist in rock climbing, and a Mrs India World pageant finalist." Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Articles in attributing Look Promotional. I correspond with the other writers in the Favour of Deletion of this promotional sheet. I have no individual solicitude or Issue with this couple at all. I have high respect for their hard work as they claim (if proven by them on the ground). BUT, The wiki may not be the right platform to create a promotional profile, Article. The Article miscarries Precedence (notable) and trustworthiness of most utmost of the links stated in the Testimonial segment. I completely agree with the point of view of Sir BasicsOnly and Sir Materialscientist . I am late to Wikipedia but an old soul on the planet of Internet and Internet Etiquettes (Protocols). I concur with my superiors and esteemed advisors (Sir User:BasicsOnly BasicsOnly and Sir  User:Materialscientist ). They are senior guides who have designated points to a farthest professional manner. I do click with all genuine concerns and axiom of complete clean up of Promotional Profiles from Wikipedia. Another legitimate solicitude is one of the profiles who is bootlegging all links repeatedly to the answers and yielding the erudition as it is the same person. One of the Raos?. That is not an argument for me at a secluded level but of direction, would be at Professional Front for sure. Let's come in the unrestricted and have a fair consideration in regards to the Testimonials have been claimed in Articles. Let us have a legitimate prospect to comprehend this couple better with the official records. There are a lot of claims/Rumours about the unsaid unwanted charges on them? But as far as the Notability is provided and the Wiki policy is NOT misused and formed, I do not have an Issue, But for the next time. This time I correspond with the Seniours and propose to DeepaMourya (User talk:DeepaMourya) 19:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain which of the other editors you corresponded with and how, and the reference to ? Abecedare (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is barely even an allegation of notability (co-authorship of two published books). Drill sergeants are not notable as soldiers, and absent extraordinary deeds, run of the mill. The claim that's he's one of two trainers with this style is bollocks. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2020 (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.