Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanishk Sajnani (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 speedily deleted by Bbb23 per CSD G5 (Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kanishk Sajnani
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG; individual remains only "Wikipedia-notable" with respect to one event. Previously deleted per discussion; I don't have access to the prior version to assess the level of change. (Also, note that the changes to the prior AFD discussion arise from an issue with the new-page curation toolbar; I am reporting at the village pump.)  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  21:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete articles should not be based on recounting the contents of a blog.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note Made some changes after nomination in AFD - Added another Reference/Citation, Image with caption & updated website.Nexa9911 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Since last AFD of the same subject, 3 additional- unique refrences have been added (Sourced at different time/dates & for different events),thus proving notability.Nexa9911 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

''Air India, SpiceJet, Cleartrip, Mobikwik & Faasos were the only companies I ever corresponded with. Never informed the rest of them about any Loopholes. For the same reason, I never mentioned any technical details in this article. Compromised list may still include some E-commerce websites, Home services, Travel agencies, Educational Institutions, Government applications, etc"'' Hagennos (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC) An article shouldn't be deleted just because it "SEEMS" to be something. A simple Google search will show-up numerous media outlets covering him(exclusively or otherwise). The subject's profession is that of a Security researcher, who publishes his findings through a blog. So, obviously his media coverage would also involve parts of his written research. Thus, references can't be said to be sourced from the Individual himself. Also, If the article seems to be promotional, Wikipedia suggests someone re-editing the article rather than completely removing it.
 * Delete The article seems to be written as a promo and many of the references seem to be sourced from the individual itself. Fails WP:PROMO . An example of what is stated earlier
 * Comment The article "SEEMS" to be written as a promo and many of the references "SEEM" to be sourced from the individual itself.

The user Hagennos(talk) has quoted the subject from his last blog(for reasons not known). Here is his statement from the latest Inteview " Right now, I’m doing some security research & upgrading my skills in the InfoSec domain. My upcoming blogs will hopefully make some positive impact on the Industry. Also, some market research for a potential product may be in the timeline." Nexa9911 (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment:Still Delete Can you point to two intellectually independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on quotations from the individual, or has independent analysis or opinion)? Because when I looked, I couldn't find one. Hagennos (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment:Still Keep Dear Hagennos (talk) First of all, most of the refrences from the press rely on information from the Individual himself/herself( Oral in form of satements, Visual in form of photographs or Written in form of blogs).Secondly, even if there are no refrences having independent analysis or opinion, Wikipedia official policies doesn't see it as an issue. Nexa9911 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment At first there was an issue with the notability. Now, the article is being said to be promo. Is wikipedia full of deletionsists or what? Nexa9911 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing more than WP:PROMO. MT TrainDiscuss 16:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Still not notable. GSS (talk |c|em ) 19:13, 24 December 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.