Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishan Goel


 * 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. Discounting the opinion of the person who is now blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzy anslem.  Sandstein  18:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ishan Goel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject except this by Forbes which reads like an interview and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 08:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 08:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 08:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. That Forbes piece is from a contributor, which would not normally be considered independent or reliable as per WP:RSP. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the article describes him as a photographer but his own website does not. No sign of notability as a photographer. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are lots of notable sources with articles on him including these from Forbes and Business Insider. Also would you consider Inc as a notable source? I agree he has no worthy project as a photographer which I have taken out but I feel he should be included based on his works as a digital marketer. Buzzy anslem (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Buzzy anslem (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * The sources do not establish notability and he has done nothing that makes him notable. GSS (talk |c|em ) 06:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the Forbes item is by "a contributor " not their staff, and consists of one-paragraph blurbs about 10 equally undistinguished people.  The Business Insider is a one sentence quote  his publicist managed to get inserted in an article about some general subject. The reason there isn't anything better is that he hasn;t done anything worth writing about ,either in the real world, or here. Which raises the question of how this article came to be written--I assume it must have been coi of some sort,  but iI cannot tell whether it was his own staff or an entirely indiscriminating paid writer, A competent paid WP writer, even if undeclared, would have known better than to try to write an article on him.  DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I find your assumptions funny. Not seeming to hold too much brief on the subject but you claim 10 young minds changing the usual narrative as undistinguished, you also said his publicist managed to insert him in a BI article - if he wasn't worthy would he have been mentioned in the first place? Here is another article on him by Inc. He was a speaker at SXSW. You also call me a fellow contributor to wikipedia as incompetent. Buzzy anslem (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Inc. piece is not acceptable for a couple of reasons. First, it's an interview which is not an independent source as required for establishing notability and most importantly it was not published by their staff member. GSS (talk |c|em ) 05:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject has coverage in multiple independent sources which are verifiable like the Forbes link. Let us not forget that it takes special achievement to be featured in Forbes. Basic requirements include; verifiable independent sources and relevant primary and secondary sources, all of which the subject in question posses. I vote for keep. Stevedure (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds like you forget to read the comments above by Jake Brockman and DGG, both have said very clearly that Forbes piece is not acceptable per WP:RSP so do you have anything else to support your vote? GSS (talk |c|em ) 11:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: The subject meets the WP:BASIC requirements in WP:BIO and "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". I think we can help the original editor by adding secondary sources.Stevedure (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * and how it passes WP:BASIC when there is no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject? GSS (talk |c|em ) 11:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the sources do not provide adequate coverage. This is a 19-year-old. To say he is an expert on anything in a meaningful way is not worth stating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2018 (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.