Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dipayan Ghosh


 * 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. Mostly (but not exclusively) per the detailed analysis of the references by DGG. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Dipayan Ghosh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no third party evidence of 1notability -- the references are almost entirely his own blog entries.  DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The net result is three 30 under 30 write-ups from Forbes. Agreed, they like him. Is this enough for notability? The WSJ is duplicating Forbes, Politico is notices, publishing thru the White House is not notability. New America is not independent; cornell is an announcement.  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not yet achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. Thank you, DGG & Xxanthippe. I disagree. DGG's complaint cited no 3rd party evidence and references that were almost entirely his own blog entires. If you look more closely at the references, there are a range of over 20. Only 3 are blogs written by Ghosh, and each of those was published through the White House. There also is 3rd party notability in the original set of references, from Politico, Forbes, EdScoop and a few others. The page has been edited to include additional references from the Wall Street Journal, Harvard, New America, Cornell and Politico. Thank you. Climate7298 (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The recent update by Climate7298 has resolved the notability issue. I would have placed the   attention tag on this; not necessary to bring it to AfD so quickly. Jack &#124; talk page 11:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * keep I had reviewed this page. It passes the GNG. d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  12:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Summoned by page's creator via my talk page. The subjects meets general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments There are a few more refs. than when I looked at it; examining them,
 * 1) is reliable for the facts of his degree, but does not show notability.
 * 2) the various 30 under 30 lists have been generally considered to mean might be notable some day, this is a WSJ article about one of their lists.
 * 3) he wrote this himself
 * 4) press release from his university
 * 5) announcement about a lecture
 * 6) directory listing
 * 7) interview, where he says what he wants
 * 8) another 30 under 30 from Forbes.
 * 9) he wrote this one  (
 * 10) publication by his work group
 * 11) ditto
 * 12) ditto
 * 13) announcement about a talk he gave  he gave
 * 14) publication from his workgroup
 * 15) ditto
 * 16) ditto
 * 17) ditto
 * 18) ditto
 * 19) ditto
 * 20) mere mention -- Politico (20)
 * 21) another mere mention -- Politico
 * 22) announcement for a panel he was on
 * 23) another writeup by Forbes
 * 24) announcement for a panel he was on
 * 25) anther announcement
 * 26) summary of a panel he was on
 * 27) promotional bio from associated organization
 * Comments Thanks for your feedback, all. Respectfully, I think many of DGG’s statements about the references are incorrect. The references that were used in the page, including blog posts published through the White House and articles of recognition, are the same or are very similar to those used in many other existing biographical pages. As others have posed, the subject seems to meet the necessary standards. Climate7298 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Once someone is notable, we can describe what they wrote, but depending on the nature of what they wrote it may or may not show them notable. Writing position papers for a government agency in general does not show   notability, unless they have provable great impact. "notability " does not apply to the content of an article, but it does apply to deciding whether woe should have an article. (And, even sos, many of the mentions and minor papers listed in WP articles are not significant content and should be removed, depending on context. There are several hundred thousand over-promotional bios in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or  remove.  The least we can do is not add to them.  DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject is clearly notable per Wikipedia standards, whether we look at the GNG or cross-examine similar pages. Several reputed and independent sources have covered the subject’s opinions or profiled him. Earlier, I did not expand on why I think DGG’s statements about the references’ independence are untrue, but to look more closely at some of DGG’s claims: to say that [7] is simply “an interview where he says what he wants” ignores that this was with a reporter employed by a reputed, independent news source that has quoted him in other articles, too. In another example, [14] and [18] are not “publications by his group,” but instead clearly list him alongside other noted “public policymakers” who were interviewed by the U.S. Departments of Education and Commerce for guidance, signaling notability. The Politico references (we only included two but there are more), are not just passing mentions because Politico described something happening to the subject. [24-26] are obviously not “announcements” or “summaries” of panels. They are independent news reports that discuss things the subject said at major public meeting with other senior participants including an attorney general. Because of these gaps, it seems DGG’s nomination contradicts the Wikipedia stated policy. Page clearly seems to pass GNG. Climate7298 (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete fails GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- too soon per available sources & reads like a LinikedIn profile / glorified CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments Thanks for relisting this, North America1000 . Found some new relevant links, https://www.wired.com/story/google-big-eu-fine/, https://qz.com/1009591/facebooks-pride-button-appears-to-be-rolling-out-in-a-way-that-is-culturally-sensitive-to-bigots-fb/, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/338226-facebook-feels-the-heat, http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-tech/2017/06/28/obama-digital-expats-reunite-at-new-america-221089. K.e.coffman, would you have suggestions on how we can improve? I agree with you, but had only copied style I have seen in other bios. Climate7298 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete failing significant coverage in independent sources, The new citations suffer the same infirmities as the previous ones. --Bejnar (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a guy with a job, his White House work seems to have been in a very subordinate function. The article reads like his CV. If we'd cover him we'd have to cover every Millenial tech expert or government staffer with a decent internet footprint. Sources seem to be mainly passing mentions or otherwise peripheral coverage, insofar as they are even reliable.  Sandstein   14:44, 6 July 2017 (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.