Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamit Khemka


 * 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. After discounting the confirmed sockpuppets and SPAs, the consensus is clearly to delete, particularly considering the comments of those who examined the sources in depth. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Shamit Khemka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

nn entrepreneur. With rge exception of arrest for hate speech I don't see significant independent coverage in sources cited. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article actually contains no better signs of a better notable Wikipedia article, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  04:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is biography of an Indian entrepreneur who is popular for his startups and involvement in global organization like EO. The article has been supported by many genuine resources published by popular magazines and news websites, viz. Business Standard, Zee News India, Forbes India Magazine. Mridu 09:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)
 * Note- New account. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note for Altenmann - Neither my account is new and nor the references for this article are weak. With your desperate ways on this page, it seems that you are expecting a loss if the page does not get deleted.Mridu 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note for Mridu -- see Psychological projection and The pot calling the kettle black. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep good & bad both portions of the article, as they are supported by substantial references and seems informative enough to qualify for the biography, the hate speech portion can although be blended within the "Personal Life" section or the paragraph heading can be changed to "Controversies", it is best to avoid rude words within the wiki articles.Kermazov (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note- New account. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Strong sourcing. No reason to delete. AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Press releases and other PR stuff is not "strong sources". - üser:Altenmann >t 07:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are confusing News sites and reputable magazines with PR. - Mridu 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No I am not. PR is peddled thru news sites and magazines. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You think a PR has been peddled through all the news sites over the world including The New York Times, Business Standard, Times City, Zee News, The Telegraph, India Today and Forbes and over the years? Won't that make it a valid and solid news story?Mridu 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Solid references, no need to delete. It seems to me as a planned approach to have this page deleted, while a new user Passport2016 added the hate speech controversy and after 2 days, Altenmann nominates the page to delete. Unfortunately, many agencies nowadays offer paid services to mess-up wikipedia entries. The sourcing of this article comes from The New York Times, Business Standard, Times City, Zee News, The Telegraph, India Today and Forbes. A cheap PR cannot be sold to these many reputable news agencies. Esparami (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * a SPA, or possibly a sleeper sock popped up suddenly. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, the user SwisterTwister is the only one who has supported you and by checking his contributions, it seems that you have been knowing each other from the past, and the support seems more like a favor. Mridu 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, and by the way, Mridusinha, you're an advertising SPA, and your keep seems more like promotion. The sources, with the exception of the hate speech incident (which, note, is the only thing referenced to the New York Times) are miserable. Esparami, your claim that "many agencies nowadays offer paid services to mess-up wikipedia entries" makes no sense. Why should they — who would pay for it? To the contrary, many agencies offer paid services to create and to puff up wikipedia entries such as this one. See also the apparently related, even more miserably sourced International Chandramauli Charitable Trust, which I've just prodded. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep - multiple reliable sources with significant coverage are available for this person (other than the hate speech incident), for instance,, , , etc.. And a ton of trivial coverage on this person makes me think this person is indeed notable— UY Scuti Talk  21:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first ref is PR puffery without author, 2 and 3 is just citing Klemka, i.e, again promotion. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - sources are either trivial mentions, quoting the subject, or outright PR. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show he passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - not sure why references from The Telegraph, The new york times, the indian express, Business Standard and Forbes are being considered low by the other editors. The article seems pretty strongly sourced whether for good or for bad information about Khemka, but yes it is solid. Desertedtense (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that the above is the very first edit ever by the account Desertedtense. May I ask how you found this discussion? Bishonen &#124; talk 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep - looking at some of the sources, they check out! Bearian (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: I have filed an SPI concerning Mridusinha, Kermazov, Esparami, and Desertedtense. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, you are just being desperate. Just seen your contribution history, seems like you are infamous for blocking users' accounts and deleting their pages, rather than to have any actual contribution on the wikipedia. Mridu 04:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)
 * And it seems that you have been blocked 3 times for your notorious activities. Mridu 04:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)
 * Edits made by you in past 7 days is 1 and edits made by you in past 30 days is 4 as appearing [|here], seems like your sole purpose of logging into wikipedia these days in to delete khemka's and all related pages and report supporting editors. Mridu 05:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)
 * The above rant and continuous accusations that everyone else is working for a company that's trying to mess up Wikipedia for money has me really inclined to go WP:DUCK on the SPI filed by Bishonen. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And per

this and this, it is safe to conclude that Mridusinha does indeed work for SynapseIndia, and may well be Shamit Khemka himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the sock users should be blocked, however the page seems to be notable and hence can be kept.Desertedtense (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: re-opening this AfD Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete - nonnotable businessman. no significant coverage of the person beyond clearly promotional material. Claims to notability are leadership of several nonnotable orgs, including one with article I am about to file for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. non notable ; the references in general have the unmistakable ring of press releases, and press releases they are, no matter where they were published. The nature of Indian newspapers at this point with respect to articles on business,entrepreneurs, professional workers, films, books,and all other topics susceptible to promotion makes them unreliable sources. If we are to include articles on subjects in these fields, we need sources which show clear accomplishments that would obviously justify an article. Such accomplishments are not present here--the size of his enterprises does no  give rise to an assumption that they would be good sources, and his other activities likewise.  I find this an extremely regrettable situation, but if there are no good sources for an area, what else can we do?  DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have filleted the article of all but the sourced material; my edit summary sums it up. I think it is probably 'keepable' by now; but that of course is for the community to decide. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  10:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I have struck my comment as am forced to agree with the above. My fillet knife was obviously knot sharp enough but a clincher is that it is untrustworthy. Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  11:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Going over the sources in the article as of when I started this post (sources removed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi are marked with an ^), we have obvious PR pieces and advertisements which fail WP:RS, affiliated sources which fail the "independent" part of WP:GNG (, , ^, ^), single mentions which fail the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG (, , , ^), sources on the hate speech arrest which fail WP:1E . That's it.  Nothing else.  Pretending for a moment this meets WP:GNG, there's still severe WP:UNDUE focus on his business when his presence in sources is more about the hate speech website.  Whether or not any of his companies is notable does not matter.
 * please tell me how this is "strong sourcing."  Please check out WP:PR and WP:1E; the few sources that approach "checking out" do not meet WP:GNG.
 * Also, besides the fact that the subject is not notable, the article was largely written by an editor who has acted in bad faith by lying about a clear conflict of interest and sockpuppeting. Given that conflict of interest, this article can only be intended as a promotional piece, which is not what this site is for.  While any editor's behavior does not justify deletion, given that the article does not meet GNG, the behavior points toward WP:NUKEANDPAVE.  If someone else finds legitimate sources that truly do indicate that the subject is notable, it's totally cool to bang out a stub two seconds after the page is deleted.  But I do not think we should reward Mridusinha's greedy dishonesty by letting him host such a flimsily written puff-piece for himself or his boss (whatever his relationship is).  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * delete They exist, they've had a career. So has everyone. Why is this one notable? Even the racism aspect seems too minor to put them in an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability up to our standards. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral - there are good sources, but an argument has been made that WP:1E applies. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2016 (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.