Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Venkatesan


 * 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. The nomination has been countered with the provision of sources, although claims of promotionalism in the nomination were not addressed much in the discussion. The nominator has not commented on the sources provided later in the discussion, and the user that !voted to delete after the nomination stated later in the discussion, "I will not re-analyse further referencing, it's hard work". As such, it appears that the sources presented later in the discussion were not addressed by either. Conversely and relative to this, there is an overall consensus here that the subject meets notability guidelines per the sources presented herein. North America1000 17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ravi Venkatesan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete AfD is the correct venue, though this would normally be a speedy deletiin candidate, AfD provides protection against re-creation.
 * None of the references are worth anything in establishing the alleged notabiity of the gentleman. We have pasisng mentions, blogs by him, one that is 404 error. This smacks of editing for pay, so I have applied a warnng template to the creating editor's talk page. The revision acceptd at AFC had a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion procrss (AFC brief to reviewers) so was a correct acceptance by the reviewer. Indeed no-one saw any problems with it for over a month, and after several more edits. I do not suggest we revert to that version, just to delete it Fiddle   Faddle  10:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have taken some time to analyse the references in detail from this permalink current at the time of analysis


 * Unfortunately this shows that the creating editor and I differ about the qualifty of sourcing. This is the level of diligence Wikipedia requires when assessing references, though it is not often formalised in this manner. I have not sought additional references. The onus is on those who wish to verify notabikity to provide those, so I ask them to use the same diligence Fiddle   Faddle  18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Responding to above comment, I want to call out that the above post is not truly evaluating notability because the post is looking at links that have been used to prove specific points rather than links that point to the subject's general notability. E.g. The link to his book, was a link from a bookstore. The link showing his current designation is a link to his profile on a related website. Those should not be reasons to disallow his notability. However, I have taken a shot at filling a table proving that there are significant sources to prove notability and all with mainstream reliable media sources. With this I believe that the subject definitely meets the WP:GNG guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY and should continue to remain. In summary, the WP:GNG guidelines emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject. Please see table below.

Ktin (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Before I respond with the reasons why this article should be 'kept', I want to first answer the COI / Paid editing charge above. I have responded both on my talk page User talk:Ktin and on my user page that I do not have a COI with any of the articles that I edit and I also certify that I am not paid for any of my actions on this site. Ktin (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I accept the assertion made here and on your talk page. I have left you a personal comment not relevant to this AfD there Fiddle   Faddle  15:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 *  Keep . The subject of the article is a prominent business executive and passes WP:NBIO requirements as well as WP:NOTABILITY. Specifically, he has been the Chairman of Microsoft India, Chairman of Bank of Baroda, and co-chairman of the board at Infosys Technologies amongst a few other. These are significant leadership positions. Furthermore, he has significant media coverage, over and above passing mentions. This meets the notability guideline as called out at WP:NOTE.


 * Some examples of coverage that is notable and are independent of the topic:


 * Newspapers and Web based media


 * 1) - LiveMint
 * 2) - The Indian Express / Financial Express
 * 3) - The Economic Times
 * 4) - The Hindu / The Hindu Business Line


 * All of the above sources are independent of the subject, and are more than a passing mention.


 * He is in the similar category of Indian Business Executives as the following folks (just indicative) -- S. D. Shibulal, Kris Gopalakrishnan, and most folks in this Category:20th-century_Indian_businesspeople and Category:21st-century Indian businesspeople.


 * Quality Concerns - This can be a legitimate concern. However, the article has been written with WP:NPOV in mind, without making it seem like a WP:PROMO. However, if there is targeted feedback / recommended changes - these can be worked in parallel when this article is live. This article is a stub, or a start class article, and that can definitely be expanded.


 * Cheers.
 * Ktin (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you care to scroll up you will see that we have a different opinion of the referencing. I do not say, nor does the table, that I am correct. What I say and it says is that our opinions differ. Fiddle   Faddle  19:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, these seem to have been added after my last edit. I am sure we can rewrite the table based on the ten links that I have just added. So, if it is a matter of augmenting these links to the article -- we can definitely do that. Ktin (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will not re-analyse further referencing, it's hard work. I'll leave it to you to seek to ensure that the notability is correctly asserted and verified It is better references that are required, not more. And some may usefully be set aside.   Fiddle   Faddle  19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Summarizing my note: In summary, the WP:GNG guidelines emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject. Please see the source-assessment-table (pasted below again, for readability).
 * , I will not re-analyse further referencing, it's hard work. I'll leave it to you to seek to ensure that the notability is correctly asserted and verified It is better references that are required, not more. And some may usefully be set aside.   Fiddle   Faddle  19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Summarizing my note: In summary, the WP:GNG guidelines emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject. Please see the source-assessment-table (pasted below again, for readability).




 * Ktin (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment While I imagine it will conclude too late for this deletion discussion I have started a discussion about Livemint in the Reliable Sources arena. My opinion clearly differs from that of another editor. Consensus is required from editors wise in assessing sources for futire reference. Fiddle   Faddle  07:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Without making this a referendum on Livemint, I want to say that the link / article being considered seems to be a syndication of an article with a named author by-line from Bloomberg viz. this one and not a press-release. I am assuming that just like with any other syndication, there are due partnering agreements in place - Nothing wrong with that per se. Now, if there is an assertion that the latter article is not a piece of original reporting, that charge should be attributed to Bloomberg. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is important when assessing sources. Fiddle   Faddle  07:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with, the subject seems to an important person in Indian business circles. He meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO with or without LiveMint being treated as RS. However LiveMint is definitely one of the top business newspaper in India. His chairmanship of three companies itself is enough to make him notable according to WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (Infosys is the 5th largest Indian company by market cap being part of both SENSEX and Nifty-50 index, Bank of Baroda is the 3rd largest Bank in India by its business size, Microsoft has a large presence in India due to its market size and talent). His departure from Infosys itself seems to made a huge noise in Indian financial papers. --Roller26 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The stature of this fellow in India is significant by way of the corporations he has headed up. Infosys and the Bank of Baroda are huge institutions, and I find that this fellow passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I am not terribly taken by the references, but there are other - most significant reasons - to find this fellow passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with all the keep arguments made above. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (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.