Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (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 delete per strong consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 02:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Naveen Jain
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Lack of Notability according to several reasons top of which are WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I haven't see any Independent secondary reliable source that talk about him such as Bloomberg New, CNBC, Business Insiders, etc. To me he fail notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak Makarfi (talk • contribs) 6 February 2022 (UTC) — Ak Makarfi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note that this AFD was not transcluded until 16 February 2022. SpinningSpark 18:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Makarfi''' ]](T) 12:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A Google search will generate a great deal of sources with brief mentions only. The details of initiatives such as the Xprize Foundation seem to carry more weight. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Abukakata05‬ (talk 4:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Abukakata05‬ (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete lack of source that feature him. But his company and other companies he associated with are quite notable and that doesn't establish notability, so he fails WP:SIGCOV. Delete it
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SNOW. The article has multiple, independent, reliable sources documenting multiple events in Jain's life that have significant coverage in those sources. None of the sources have been contested by anyone. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear I'm not simply repeating comments from the previous AfD: The article failed deletion criteria previously, and it has since been substantially changed, carefully reviewed, and even put up for GA evaluation Talk:Naveen Jain/GA1. Notability had been met many times over at the last AfD, and Jain has received significant additional coverage since for his new endeavors. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW. Most of the information in this article really belongs the company articles for InfoSpace, Intelius or Freei. Google search result doesn't signify anything about him and no coverage at whole. Trust Me I'm Biotechnologist ( talk) 12:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Trust Me I'm Biotechnologist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Hey, what in the FUCK is happening? Gotta remember to be WP:CIVIL. For starters, any discussion where both Keep and Delete !votes are citing WP:SNOW is a discussion where a SNOW closure would be LEAST appropriate. For seconds, both of the preceding comments are cut-and-pastes from Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain. Somebody open an SPI and make sure to ping and throw the popcorn, because this is gonna be some good stuff, I imagine. Edit: Hipal and Ronz are WP:LEGITSOCK, and the maker of the second comment is blocked since 2015, so it's joe-y and job-y but not SPI-y . (1. I need to stop accusing people of random nonsense. Someone throw a trout and/or boomerang my way. 2. I filed an SPI anyway. If I'm wasting their time, they'll tell me as such.) No popcorn today I'm afraid, lads. casualdejekyll  23:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the SPA accounts. I think it safe to assume paid editing yet again. --Hipal (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Without going beyond the first few references I saw 2 (Seattle Time and Inc.) that are substantial articles about him. Lamona (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SNOW and per reasons provided by trust I'm Bio...., which I don't have to say it over again, with all such reference might look worth inclusion as an encyclopedic article, but all talking about the company. An@ss_koko(speak up)  07:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No reasons have been provided. The SPAs are simply repeating comments from the previous Afd with no apparent recognition of the current state of the article. This is not a vote. If you can't provide rationale, you're wasting everyone's time. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some people really need to read what WP:SNOW actually is... because none of you are using it correctly casualdejekyll  19:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't why Hipal and his friend are busy castigating people here that comment delete. He tagged me in suspected purpete which I'm obviously have no connection with any one but time will tell us. The methodology of their behavior is a real indication that are paid to depend this article. I see no reason why they will be castigating those that comment delete and is clearly indication that they are connected with owner of the article or they paid to depend. Hipal has participated in the previous Afd and the recent Afd which is a clear indication he has connection or UPE. I'm sure the judge will not consider your thought of castigating editors. I remain bless with all editors Trust Me I'm Biotechnologist ( talk) 20:09, 18 February 2022
 * I don't know how you managed to do it, but this comment breaks my installation of Convenient Discussions on this page and I can't figure out how to fix it. So manual comment here. I honestly have no idea what a "purpete" is supposed to be, but despite claiming to be a Biotechnologist all your edits are to financial articles, which is a little suspicious. The single-purpose account tag was added to document that. casualdejekyll  21:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WAIT. Did you just accuse me of paid editing? Have you.. even looked at my contributions? That's almost a personal attack. casualdejekyll  21:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't take the bait. The COI and PAID editing around this article tends to get uncivil with a strong focus away from policy toward editors. --Hipal (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Fair point. I personally can't find any egregious violations of anything here. The user is obviously not a Biotechnologist at MIT, as they claim to be, but I don't think there's anything worth reporting there besides deleting the page they claimed that on, which I tagged and some admin did. casualdejekyll  23:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the references used are not independent secondary reliable sources if you check it well. Again, the biography is mostly about the companies he worked and co-foundered rather than himself (Naveen Jain). So, the article misses biographical notability.Katobara (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Katobara. Welcome to Wikipedia. That's not the notability criteria at all. The article received a GA review. Any notability problems would have been identified then, but they weren't. --Hipal (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.