Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurbaksh Chahal (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Being bold and closing this early given the comments, and discussion below - WP:SNOW applies. Like Atsme noted, the article requires scrutiny for facts, and needs to maintain a neutral point of view. Thanks everyone for your valuable contributions. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability and reads like a tawdry coatrack rather than an encyclopedic worthy BLP. It is tabloid-worthy at best. Atsme Talk 📧 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Atsme  Talk 📧 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article has been on Wikipedia for 13 years. It has received the attention of numerous editors. What is "tawdry" and "tabloid-worthy" here is not the subject himself, but some of the subject's behavior. Gurbaksh Chahal does not "fail notability." He is a very successful software entrepreneur. If you were to remove every article on Wikipedia about a very successful software entrepreneur, you'd have to ax, I don't know, five thousand articles. If you were to remove every article about a software engineer whenever one got a stain on his reputation, you'd have to ax, I don't know, two thousand articles -- and the subjects would be grateful to have their articles expunged. Gurbaksh Chahal was probably delighted to be the subject of a Wikipedia article before news of his domestic violence became known. But he can't eat his cake and have it too. He was notable when he appeared on The Oprah Winfey Show. He was notable when he was featured on Extra TV as America's Most Eligible Bachelor. He was notable when served six months in jail for committing domestic battery. The man is notable! Chisme (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. User:Atsme did this request come from the user / their paid people via OTRS? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , see this TP discussion on the BLP article. Hopefully, the encyclopedia is not going to become a criminal rap sheet for every small time entrepeneur who serves time in jail. It's tabloid news, not encyclopedic. As for anything pertaining to OTRS, please contact me privately. Atsme Talk 📧 00:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After a brief look it appears this person tried to buy an article about themselves. When it did not turn out well and they discovered they do not get to control the story they are now trying to get it deleted. They are using multiple socks and emailing multiple admins. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I was not aware of that, Doc. I can't possibly remember exactly what attracted me to a particular article. I tend to sniff out AfD's, redirects, etc. from the logs because of the various projects I work with (Project Dogs has been very active of late), and I'm also a for a few admins & several editors I've collaborated with, and I cruise AfC & NPP, as time permits. I'm a bit surprised that this particular BLP made it past NPP. I was remiss in not checking to see if mine was the 1st AfD or there was a history, so my apologies in that regard. I simply saw a terrible BLP. I think (hope) you are familiar enough with my work by now to know that if a BLP was truly notable, I could not be persuaded by any outside influence to whitewash it or delete it. I may be an easy touch in some regards (like giving in to grandkids who need $10 for gas) but I'm pragmatic to a fault. Atsme  Talk 📧 01:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course User:Atsme was not making any statement against you. Just wondering if they had also tried to bring in OTRS. I emailed you by the way if you prefer to share anything that way.
 * By the way we have a subarticle of this one RadiumOne Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are valid reasons to be suspicious of the business dealings and justification for notability based on conflicting $$ claims of worth/sales/purchases that have been reported, but in retrospect, I can see why it may be better to keep the articles in an effort to assure accuracy and proper disclosure, as long as we maintain NPOV and a dispassionate tone. Something smells a little fishy about the business dealings which lends credence to potential hype/promotion/advertising. See Business Insider, the conflicting prices published by CMO vs Vox, and the WaPo article that states: Several years later, he did it again with a company called BlueLithium, which he sold to Yahoo for $300 million, according to his LinkedIn page. According to his LinkedIn page? Also, RadiumOne acquisition by RhythmOne introduces a bit of questionable activity that requires scrutiny when citing RS in an effort to make sure the information is verifiable and corroborated by several high quality sources. Atsme Talk 📧 15:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Chisme. Convicted domestic abuser Gurbaksh Chahal easily passes GNG and thus convicted domestic abuser Gurbaksh Chahal will have an article which gives proper weight to the fact that convicted domestic abuser Gurbaksh Chahal is a convicted domestic abuser. Lepricavark (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Ridiculous nomination. Current state of an article does never influence deletion and we have a ton of sources covering this man's exploits. In addition to the used sources, we have this, before the domestic-violence saga. How can anybody think someone who has sold multiple start-ups to internet-giants at millions of dollars, attracted a ton of news for domestic violence as a CEO gone rogue in prominent publications and been in BusinessInsider top-30-CEOs list of 2010 is non-notable, is beyond me. &#x222F; WBG converse 04:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I was under the impression that for private people who are only ordinarily notable, we did not include negative material involving ordinary crimes that are unrelated to their reason for notability, I do not think his relative minor appearances make him the sort of public person who would be an exception.  DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , policy/guideline, please. WP:BLPCRIME explicitly disagrees with you. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yeah, I pretty much agree with the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the article should be improved. There is enough in-depth coverage of the subject not involving the ordinary crime by independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Can establish his inclusivity even using WP:BASIC. AfD isn't for clean up and being written by a paid contributor doesn't mean automatic delete. Missvain (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close. Plenty of coverage, particularly about his conviction and probation violation. Praxidicae (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I totally understand the reasons for the nomination and that this was done in good faith to hopefully encourage the UPE editors around this that this is a notable article. With that out of the way, the sources easily pass WP:GNG.  The BusinessInsider article is a high-quality, in-depth article about Chahal.  Likewise, another strong article on Cahal from the San Francisco Chronicle that also highlights his fall after his convictions.  There are multiple sources highlighting the impact of his convictions on his companies at the time, showing why those convictions should remain in the article (impact to his career and impact to the companies).  Article is well sourced, decently written now and I suspect will be well written in a short period of time.  This should any notability questions to rest.  Ravensfire  (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.