Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Kishore


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandeep Kishore

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Coverage in RS appears to be limited to WP:ROUTINE business press and interviews. While several interviews have been provided, they have virtually no independent analysis of the subject. Searching online in English, I was unable to find anything more substantial. signed,Rosguill talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Mr Sandeep Kishore is very popular business face in India & has achieved a lot & good amount of notable sources available to prove the same. hope the page has got enough citations to prove the same.
 * The Bloomberg database entry does nothing to contribute to notability. However, that Forbes India piece is a significant cut above any of the sources that were previously listed in the article and is making me consider withdrawing the nomination. signed,Rosguill talk 05:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please keep in mind that Forbes articles are not always independent. Per the Wikipedia article: "Forbes currently allows advertisers to publish blog posts on its website alongside regular editorial content through a program called BrandVoice, which accounts for more than 10 percent of its digital revenue." WP:ORGCRIT specifically calls out Forbes for this, stating: "The blog post is significant and secondary – but may not be independent (blog posts are often sponsored; thus without evidence otherwise, editors should exercise caution and exclude the source) and not reliable (self-published sources are generally not reliable)." I would not base removing the nomination on a Forbes article for this reason. TheTechnician27 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was aware that on non-India Forbes, these are clearly marked as "contributor", and don't see any similar disclaimer on this article, but maybe Forbes India is different. signed,Rosguill talk 16:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you're correct. Upon further inspection, however, it seems most of the coverage Mr. Kishore gets in the Forbes article is in direct quotations – for example "says Kishore" – which I address in my vote below. Ultimately, you seem to know more about this than I do, so your input would be appreciated if something is flawed with my argument.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  20:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:But I could find a lot of independent sourceable articles under Google News which are good enough to prove his popularity as a business person in my opinion. He has contributed a lot to Indian IT sector & such people deserved to be on Wikipedia.I personally dont know him but read a lot about his contributions to IT sector in IndiaDeepak HM (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you provide examples of such coverage? I was able to find a lot of trivial coverage, such as softball interviews, but couldn't find anything significant. signed,Rosguill talk 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: The trouble I'm finding with sources surrounding Mr. Kishore is they all largely focus around quotes from him, are interviews with him, or most notably, with the articles from the PTI (seen in different outlets but written by the agency), use press releases from the company as their only source. Even the Forbes India article, (Forbes is not assumed to be independent per my comment above) largely only mentions quotes from Kishore. Because of this, the subject ostensibly fails WP:ORGCRIT; it passes "significant coverage", passes "in multiple", and passes "secondary sources", but it seems to completely fail "reliable" (per WP:ORGCRIT: "self-published sources are generally not reliable") and "independent". Comment: If the article is kept, its citations undoubtedly need to be cleaned up. TheTechnician27 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , as this is about Kishore, and not about his company, ORGCRIT is not a relevant guideline. That having been said, the Forbes India piece is not enough to meet WP:GNG on its own, and the rest of the coverage that I've seen is basically worthless for notability purposes. signed,Rosguill talk 20:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I realize now that I need to more thoroughly examine WP:ORG; I was under the impression that these guidelines also formed the criteria for its personnel. By any chance, do you know if there are any specific guidelines for business personnel outside of WP:BASIC?  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  20:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , regarding the scope of NORG, I think the first two sentences of the lead pretty clearly establish that the guideline is for organizations and their products or services. As for other relevant guidelines, I don't think there are any that cover all businesspeople (other than BASIC as you pointed out), although some businesspeople may have accomplishments that meet WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NACADEMIC. Some of the coverage for this subject in particular seems to mention Kishore's penchant for poetry, although it seems like he's pretty far short of meeting WP:NCREATIVE. signed,Rosguill talk 20:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where the confusion stemmed from when I read it last night. WP:ORG reads: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose", which for some reason my dumb, tired brain interpreted as also covering the individuals within that group. Sorry about that; it should've been obvious to me.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  20:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * paid news in India and User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media might help editors here. Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. The Forbes article is a good start, but is mostly just quotes and does not along with the other trivial sources get this article over any notability bar. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2019 (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.