Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurdeep Pandher


 * 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. SpinningSpark 18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Gurdeep Pandher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer and bhangra dancer, without the depth or breadth of coverage needed to properly support notability. While there are reliable sources being cited here, they are virtually all in the context of a single viral YouTube video, which just makes him a WP:BLP1E as things stand today — there's no real evidence of notability shown here for his writing apart from the simple fact that it exists. And while the advertorialized viral video spin is a recent rewrite of an older article that was much more (but not perfectly) neutral and concentrated on his writing, it didn't properly demonstrate notability as a writer either, amounting to "he exists" and parking that on a single source — so the article would not become keepable just by reverting the PR bumf either. I'm also bundling the newly created article about his book, which makes no claim of notability at all except existing and cites no sources whatsoever — technically that article's actually outright speediable, but I felt it better to keep it attached to this discussion. As always, neither writers nor books are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; certain specific standards of notability have to be attained, and certain specific standards of reliable source coverage have to support them, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(Note by Mark Hilton): This article is about the real person Gurdeep Pandher and his works, I am not sure why CAPTAIN RAJU is recommending it for deletion! I am recommending to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHilton (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia is not a matter of "this person exists and therefore must automatically have an article" — a person has to have achieved something that passes a Wikipedia notability criterion, such as winning a notable literary award for his writing, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. It is not something that everybody is entitled to just for existing. For one thing, your comment seems to imply that you think somebody said he wasn't a real person — but nobody said that in the first place, and "is a real person" is not, in and of itself, automatically grounds for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(Note by Mark Hilton): This person is an author of two books. One of them is 3 times sold out. And he is bhangra artist, poet and singer. CBC News, BBC, USA Today, etc. covered him. He has viral videos. Nearly half-million people follow him on social media. I am not sure what else needs to be done to mark someone a notable person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHilton (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Media coverage that exists in more than just the context of a single event, for starters. No number of followers on social media constitutes a notability freebie in the absence of passing an actual notability criterion, for one thing — and even if he actually passed a notability criterion, articles on Wikipedia must be written neutrally and encyclopedically, and no topic is ever entitled to keep an article that tips over as far into advertorial public relations bumf as you've turned this into. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(Note by Mark Hilton): Did you read he is also an author of a 3-reprints? Social media is an added thing. Yes, this article was written in way to polish it in future. A simple google search will reveal his notably. This is not a public relations bumf which you are unnecessarily describing without any logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHilton (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You get a couple of brownie points for toning the advertorialism down since this discussion was initiated, but "advertorial bumf" is a completely accurate and correct assessment of what the writing tone was at the time. And again: people do not get Wikipedia articles just because they got a blip of media coverage in the context of a single event — they get Wikipedia articles if the coverage sustains significantly beyond a blip of publicity for a single event. And writers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for the fact of having written books, either — they get Wikipedia articles when, for example, they have won or been nominated for a major literary award for one or more of their books.
 * And, for the record, considering that you have never once made a single edit to Wikipedia that wasn't directly related to Gurdeep Pandher, I strongly suspect some form of direct conflict of interest — are you a public relations agent whom Pandher paid to tart up the article with advertorial content about his YouTube videos? Because whether you are or not, that's what you're coming across as right now. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(Note by Mark Hilton): The way you are using your language now, you seems like a racist jerk to me. Aren't you? Now you are accusing me of his public relations agent. Mind your language and be respectful! You are going too far and I suspect your credibility. I am going to write to Wikipedia on your language you are using here. His media coverage is not about a single event. He is getting the sustainable media coverage since 2004. Some people like you who are just jealous of others' achievements and who cannot do anything themselves, waste their lifetime finding faults in other people's works. You are being way too much negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHilton (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, no, I've said nothing remotely "racist" or "disrespectful" at any point in this discussion, I've used no remotely "inappropriate" language whatsoever, and I frankly don't give a flying fig what you think of my credibility — if we took this to WP:ANI for a credibility contest, there's no doubt in my mind that I'd win. As well, please note that if you don't drop the ad hominem attacks on me, you're going to be at serious risk of being editblocked for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. HTH, HAND. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject has two (or three, depending on whether you consider each book separately) claims to notability; he is the author of two books, and a video he posted received more than 300,000 views. His videos have received coverage in the media, but his books have not garnered any critical attention. He is not notable as a poet. As for the videos, a video going viral (if that is even the right word in this case) is not something we would have an article about, so there is not even the question of whether the subject should be covered independent of the event, or redirected to the article about the event. Unsourced claims like "From BC to Ontario, he has been to almost every city and town, plus majority of villages." should not exist in a BLP. If all such statements were culled from the article, not much would remain. Mduvekot (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep an absolutely nauseating advertorial (can someone please delete all the images of this guy meeting X, Y and Z?), but it does appear to have numerous sources. GNG might be met, by virtue of the sheer force of persistent attention seeking and promotion producing weak coverage.104.163.151.78 (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Mduvekot. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 03:56, 9 May 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.