Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Taneja


 * 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. The discussion appears to have attracted a number of canvassed votes and contributions by low-volume or new users. I am entitled to, and do, give these lesser weight than reasoned contributions by high-volume editors. The excellent analyses of the sources provided indicate that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and such notability he has is transient arising from his recent criticism of safety at an airline. This fails WP:BIO1E – which is different to WP:BLP1E.

As with all of my deletion decisions, I have considered this carefully before closing the discussion and I am satisfied that I have followed the deletion process correctly. If you wish to contest the decision, please go directly to Deletion review. I waive all requirements to consult with me before doing so. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Gaurav Taneja

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, a non-notable youtuber as I couldn't find any reliable sources. Antila ✉  06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Antila  ✉  06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antila  ✉  06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep:: India Today article about the subject
 * Republic TV coverage of the vlogger please see
 * WION news coverage of the vlogger please see.
 * A detailed coverage by Deccan Chronicle of the subject which includes his life, his two YouTube channels which have a million subscribers is sufficient to establish notability.
 * Hineyo (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The article has been updated ~ Amkgp  💬  19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - he is notable YouTubers having two channels with more than million subscribers and passes WP:GNG as there are some reliable sources used. Princepratap1234 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the person is a well known YouTube celebrity and fitness trainer has many WP:RELIABLE references over the web. ~ Amkgp 💬  19:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep He bravely took a stand against a major airline which received necessary media coverage. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT.ScottHastie (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep He is well known public figure. GKCH (talk)
 * Keep He is a well known Indian Youtuber and the article contains a number of good class references from well known news portal. Sony R (talk)
 * Keep: Per reasons above. He has received some coverage and the sources indicated in the article are reliable. The article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: He has close to 4.5 million subscribers in total, is a well known celebrity within the YouTube India fraternity. The pages cited for the wiki article are legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.40.74.85 (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep  ❯❯❯  S A H A   16:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. He is getting a lot of media coverage currently after highlighting AirAsia safety issues. Csgir (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * strong delete The keeps here are baseless. The "attention" he's getting from media are from fake black hat SEO sources disguised as legitimate outlets, including Deccan Chronicle which has a less than stellar reputation for churnalism. I'll detail each source below. Not only are the sources poor, but even the legitimate ones are just WP:BLP1E. He's not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a minor correction to above as per article https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/2018/12/29/like-share-subscribe.html ~ Amkgp  💬  18:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further analysis of sources in light of Praxidicae's table

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Keep passes WP:GNG and he is notable YouTuber. 2409:4063:2394:A50E:93A6:4A1:E0F7:AEA4 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Although I'm tempted to close as delete in favor of Praxidicae's ballista-bolt source analysis, the sheer numerical weight of the keep comments recommends a relist.
 * 2409:4063:2394:A50E:93A6:4A1:E0F7:AEA4 has an experience of only 1 edit ! ~ Amkgp  💬  18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Most sources online seem to mention the subject only in connection with his recent exposé about the airline he used to work for, but other than that, he doesn't seem to have any significant notability. Seems like an example of WP:BLP1E. The relevant notability guideline, I believe, is WP:ENT, and the subject clearly doesn't qualify. The guideline is unambiguous; the person in question must have a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." The guideline does mention a few other criteria for general entertainers, but they are not relevant here. It's also worth noting WP:NYOUTUBE, which although is not a binding policy or guideline, does contain helpful information, including: "The subscriber count on the subject's YouTube channel is considered a primary source and is also subject to change (there's nothing to guarantee that the x million subscribers might all suddenly unsubscribe, even though that may seem far-fetched). So editors like to see the subscriber count mentioned by a secondary source, which comes with the advantage of being a point-in-time record of that count." However, I have not been able to find reliable sources that document the subject's subscriber count, which is indicative of a lack of notability. The few subscriber counts I have found for him are either self published, or are tabloid news articles. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  19:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage isn't significant aside the recent controversy AirAsia. Azuredivay (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete for now, an article on his youtube channel 'flying beast' may be created if it has significant coverage (not PR/interviews though) Neurofreak (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Ignoring the many WP:ILIKEIT !votes above, I am convinced that apart from AirAsia incident, there is nothing notable about the subject. NavjotSR (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The source analysis by is quite flawed, especially with regards to its presentation and how that might effect an accurate assessment here. While they do fairly accurately identify some of the non-independent (PR/Interview) coverage and Deccan Chronicle (and its affiliate Asian Age) of publishing churnalism which might as well be the case here. The same can't be applied to PTI, Amar Ujala, Moneycontrol or Statesman (excluding inspiration hub which is user generated; but quite unsure why that point has been brought up as a matter of independence rather than reliability?).


 * The Moneycontrol article is still independent of the subject as it is in fact not an interview. The link provided with regards to the Statesman doesn't tell us anything about the newspaper, I've never seen any evidence of guest editors from the paper other than in op-eds where they are explicitly mentioned as such. Not to mention, note that its coverage is sourced from PTI per the byline which makes the news desk to guest editor distinction redundant in this case anyways and might answer you question on "why a lot of these look like republishing of the same". Concerning PTI itself, its a news agency from which every mainstream newspaper syndicates news reports; isolated incidences of misreporting doesn't make it "fake news", something which every news agencies is faced with from time to time. The Indian Wire does in fact seem to have an editorial team from its about section and not to mention its article on the subject is in fact credited to a specific editorial staff (Shakshi Singh); however this is not a mainstream publication but other than that there doesn't seem to evidence of its unreliability.


 * Despite stating all this, I'm not convinced the subject in question isn't a case of WP:BLP1E with regards to the kind of coverage he has received so I'll refrain from providing a keep !vote. But it should be noted that a case can certainly be made for WP:BASIC if one were to consider the "one event" alongside some of the coverage of the YouTube channel, or even the interviews whose solicitation are independent of the subject, albeit the latter is a stretch. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S: If one were to format the source assess table then I'd be akin to something as follows: Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. A supplement on low profile for info: WP:LOWPROFILE. PainProf (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply as the subject of the article has sought publicity, if the deletes accept that the event is notable /coved in a variety of sources, and the subject has otherwise sought publicity they are not low profile and can not be deleted on those grounds. The fully policy is requires all three standards to be met:


 * 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.