Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaurya Doval (3rd 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 keep. Normally an article which had been just deleted a couple months ago and whose deletion had been endorsed at DRV would default towards delete at any new AfD. However, the DRV discussion explicitly made provisions for re-creation so that default does not apply in this case. On the whole there is a consensus of participants in this discussion, even when appropriately weighting by the previous AfD (plus DRV), to find that the topic at this time has enough coverage that it is eligible for an independent article under our notability guidelines. Equally per our guidelines, this does not mean the only appropriate way of covering the topic is an independent article and so after some time (i.e. 6 or more months) for the "dust to settle" a merge discussion may be appropriate to consider that issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Shaurya Doval
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article that that has been deleted at least twice before at AFD and just over a month ago last time and the deletion upheld at DRV. Same concerns, BLP1E, GNG, and notability not inherited. If the article is deleted again, I ask the closing administrator to SALT it. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear William Please check this link to understand the discussion that went on before I submitted a new draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_August_3 Thanks! Ht24 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep While the article has been poorly submitted before, the current version came through the draft process and there is a good discussion at Talk:Shaurya Doval on why the subject is notable, based on the references currently on the article.  did good job validating the references and helping the get the article to it's current state.  Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear, I would request you to kindly look into this and add value to the discussion as I made the edits based on inputs and opinions from all of you. Thanks! Ht24 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ... and the catch-22 of this is that now that you've pinged us, we shouldn't !vote, because of WP:CANVASS. But it's ok.  In the discussion above, there are links to the DRV and the subsequent, very thorough source assessment table on the talk page where we show our working.  You can trust the AfD regulars to read, check, comprehend, think, and reach the logical conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * S Marshall, I had recently learnt the concept of WP:CANVASS but pinging you was not meant to alter the outcome but was only meant to seek your unbiased counsel in the ongoing discussion. And, as true Wikipedians, we shouldn't have a bias towards anything. Hope you get my feelings. Ht24 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I presume you've seen the comments at DRV and the thorough assessment of the sources used in the new draft. As there are 10 6 sources which appear to be independent, in depth coverage in reliable sources, can you expand on the GNG concerns mentioned in your nomination? My assessment would have to be fundamentally flawed to take the number of 'qualifying' sources below the minimum threshold. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for the 30+ AfD !votes that you've just made in rapid succession. I can't help notice the short space of time between each AfD contribution and I wonder whether you're completely confident that you've checked the sources in detail?—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , good one. It's a valid question. - Hatchens (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: In agreement with the nominator. -Hatchens (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Taking the nominator's arguments one by one:
 * Does the article fail WP:GNG? This analysis of sources shows that there are ten six references where the source is reliable and independent, and the coverage is sufficiently in depth. Therefore WP:GNG is satisfied.
 * Does the article fail WP:BLP1E? There are three criteria, each of which must be met for BLP1E to apply:
 * reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. This is not the case here because the coverage in reliable sources cover:
 * political activity
 * a quasi-political campaign involving mobile clinics and career counselling sessions
 * conflict of interest
 * a libel case
 * two notable honours
 * the person is a low-profile individual. This is not the case here - this person has sought the limelight, for example by erecting billboards with his photo on them.
 * the person's role in the event was not substantial or well documented. The nominator doesn't identify which one event the subject is notable for, but assuming it was the conflict of interest, for example, his role in that event is substantial. If the one event was the connection between Shaurya's business interests and his brother's, then there would be no story if Shaurya was not a substantial part of it.
 * BLP1E requires all of those criteria to be met whereas in my view, none of them are met.


 * Should the article be deleted on the basis of WP:INHERITED? No, because having a notable father doesn't make someone an inappropriate subject for a separate article if the son is shown to be notable in their own right, as is the case here. The 43rd president of the US isn't disqualified from having an article about them just because their dad had previously been the 41st president.


 * Should this subject not have an article now because two previous AfDs resulted in delete? No, because in deletion review, the author put forward new sources and was encouraged to submit a fresh, rewritten draft featuring those sources and to submit for a thorough review at AfC, which they have done.
 * Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: there is something wrong about this article and also about this AfD. Since you moved back this entity from a draft to namespace which was earlier executed with a possible intent to bypass this. I have checked the sources - most of them lack WP:SIGCOV and the usage of such sources in the article lacks WP:NPOV in interpretation. Also, as per WP:BLP1E only one single event (but as a general news of filing a legal case against someone... can legal cases be counted notable?) that's basically the "conflict of interest" one which led to a "libel case" and then there is a closure statement which include "an apology" from the person who has been sued in the first place - the AfC reviewer have considered all these sub events seperately. Why? Secondly most of the prominent news sources starts with or includes "Doval's son" who happens to be incumbent intelligence chief of the country. On top of that, how that can be compared with 41st and 43rd president logic? The entity is not walking on his father's footstep i.e, he is not part of government apparatus. His current affiliation is independent from his Father and that too not notable. It seems... either its a top notch colluding or its pure ignorance of Wikipedia rules at editor's level. A clarity should lead to consensus.


 * Also, pinging, and . Despite knowing it, this might invoke WP:CANVASS and I apologize for that but I am not able to refrain myself from such poor interpretation of wikipedia guidelines. - Hatchens (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel canvassed, nor influenced in any opinion I may or may not develop and may or may not express. I view this as being asked to take a look and form my own view. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This article was nominated for deletion at this AFD and then an editor moved it to Draft space. This has happened a few times recently, usually, I'm guessing, as a way to avoid possible deletion. This is disruptive so I moved the article from Draft space back to main space so this discussion could continue. That was my only involvement and I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Dear, , I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first AfC submitted by me. I wasn't expecting it to be highly controversial and that there would be so many people responding to it. That's why I moved this article to draft with the intent to make it better by adding more relevant information and reliable links to add credibility to my work. And also to resolve the unnecessary disagreements, accusations, and counter-accusations among the fellow Wikipedians over an article. Had I known that my act would be seen in a negative light, I wouldn't have done that. Ht24 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ht24 Please do not be concerned. We discuss things in order to reach consensus. Opposing views are relevant and important. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Delete: I have been asked to come here and offer a considered opinion. I have studied the source assessment table on the article's talk page, and the various arguments here to seek to see what the problem might be. Initially I found it hard to understand why the person had an article at all, struggling with obvious notability. While not a policy, I favour WP:SPEAKSELF. I'm still struggling with that. My view is that obvious notability is not easily discernible, but that sufficient independent sources have found the person to be worth writing about. WIkipedia's role is to record what others say about a person or a topic. I view this as an article which, while deserving significant improvement, passes fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made a further study and realised that I had bamboozled myself by precisely the thing I look out for at AFC. I had made too cursory a scan of the references, confusing quantity with quality. I apologise. I have read them im detail im the cold light of day. I have modified my opinion above. There is no notability save that inherited from his father (etc). He happens to be part of the same family. The references lack substance about him. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I should have worked this out yesterday when I was struggling to find notability. Instead of waiting and thinkkimng further I offered mhy opinion while tired, alwasya foolish thingh to do. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 08:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I may have been notified, but obviouly the ed. who pinged me had not the least idea how I would vote: I do not consider that canvassing. I think the individual has no significance in the Real World, except for being the the son of his father. I cannot imagine that any of the activities would have gotten. any coverage otherwise, so the relevant rule is NOT INHERITED.When his ather's infence leads him eventualyto haveacareerand ruputation of his own, to theextentthat hearticles mention the father in a short commentonly, then he might become notable .  DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, if Doval was American he would totally have an article. Would you vote to delete Ashley Biden?—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ashley Biden's father is Head of State; Doval's father is only National Security Advisor; . I don't think. we have any assumption about children of cabinet ministers and people at a similar level. But there is no bias in favor of the US--if anything, apparently a bias against including them: For children of USPresidents, checking in List_of_children_of_the_presidents_of_the_United_States I see we only include all legitimate (& most illegitimate) children  who lived to be an adult from Jefferson through John Quincy Adams and Hoover to Ford .   From Carter to the present we include only selected ones.--in fact, we have deleted articles' n Obama's children and on Barron Trump.   So recent precedent is that we include them only if they are notable themselves. As for Ashley Biden, she isI think  older than Shaurya Doval, andcertanly  has engaged in many more activities, some of which might be enough for notability on her own (but the article is an example of tabloid-style coverage). I am about to nominate the article on her husband--see Articles for deletion/Howard Krein DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I was the nominator of the 2nd AfD, and nothing appears to have changed between the two versions of the article. My assessment remains the same, from the Articles for deletion/Shaurya Doval (2nd nomination): A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; and unremarkable professional and "public policy thinker". What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Notability is not inherited from the subject's father, Ajit Doval. There's a minor controversy that relates to a nn think tank, but this insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, since having been canvassed isn't stopping anyone else !voting. The source assessment table shows that there are more than two reliable, independent sources that have written articles about Doval.  This simple test shows that Doval is notable.  And it's really important to have a simple test -- so that anyone can tell if the article they propose to write is about something notable.  As soon as we start undermining that simple test by deleting articles that pass, then it loses its value because editors won't be able to write new content without going through a committee process first.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * pass at AfC simply means the reviewer thinks the article would probably pass AfD. it is not and never was intended to be the actual process for deciding on content, but rather just a screen to keep out the imposible and improve the borderline. Considering pass afc to imply will certainly also pass afd would mean that about 90% of drafts  in afc would be declined, because very few   articles are submitted there that will certainly pass afd --it basically takes a class B article on an unambiguously  notable subject in a field where nobody disputes the criteria for notability to be certain  of passing AfD, considering its notorious variation. The proof of that is that almost no experienced editor has a 100% record of the articles they !vote keep  actually passing,  . Even if we interpreted "passing afc", as being certain that it ought to be kept at afd, it still won't be 100%, because experienced editors disagree on many articles--hence the afd process.
 * So far from afc requiring a committee, any new editor can write an article and get it into mainspace if any one reviewer thinks it has a decent change. the committee process is afd, and here it takes its chances with every article written by anyone. Not all afc passes come here, only the questioned ones. I haven't tried to do a query, but I think about 90% of what passes afd does get kept in WP without undergoing afd at all, because most reviewers are properly conservative . (the actual problem is the opposite--some are too conservative and will not pass valid stubs or articles with good references but without correct citation format. It's perfectly right that thecommunity, not a single reviewer, should decide on acceptability as an article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @DGG, @S Marshall to underline that, I would have accepted this at AFC because it is, in my view, borderline, and has a better than 50% chance again in my view of surviving a deletion process, but have opined to delete it at AfD because I feel it to be on the wrong side of the border. While this is a paradox, it is not an incorrect set of views. I'm pleased that AFC allows borderline drafts through, and am equally pleased that AfD weeds some out. Community consensus beats the opinion of a reviewer any day. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me address each of these scattershot arguments in turn.You raise concerns about puffery. If puffery exists, it should be removed, but puffery is not a good reason to delete entire articles.You raise concerns about the number of citations. In doing so, you query citation links 9 to 13. I'm not able to read link 9. Link 10 is from the Indian Express, which we as a community have evaluated as a reliable source (see WP:INDIANEXP). Link 11 is from the Hindustan Times, and in that matter I rely on the discussion in Deletion review/Log/2021 August 3 where an editor knowledgeable in such matters evaluated the Hindustan Times as a reliable source for this content. And I'm not able to read links 12 or 13. So what I see, when I check those sources, is that every one of them that I understand is a reliable source within Wikipedia's normal definitions of those terms.You then admit that "the entity has the potential to have a Wikipedia page", with which I concur, and this is that page.You then say you're not sure how to classify or categorize him. I agree with this concern and I said on the talk page that he is, at best, an aspiring politician. We have plenty of content that's hard to classify or categorize. I'm not able to classify or categorize our article on Paul the Octopus, but by our rules, this is not a valid reason to delete content.Finally, you chastise those who are wasting everyone's time. I agree with this view and I do wish they would stop.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC) 4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about AFC, I'm talking about the GNG pass. Count the sources, 1 2 3, are they reliable? Oh yes, they are. Are they independent? Yup. Are they about Doval? Yes indeed. So this is a bright line GNG pass. I would have written this, in the honest and sincere belief that it's allowed. When we start capriciously deleting content that's a bright line GNG pass, we're undermining the purpose of the rule, which is to allow people to write, safe in the knowledge that their content meets our inclusion criteria.—S Marshall</b> T/C 07:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , Link 1 is about the entity being part of a constituted panel of American think tanks Center for American Progress - cannot be counted as credible per se as we all know how think tanks operate around the world - they call themselves non-partisan type but most of them are not. Link 2 is from The Economic Times, part of WP:TOI which tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government ref. WP:RSP. Link 3 is from The Wire (India) which challenges the narrative or origin of the entity. If that link has been used properly then a lot of WP:PUFFERY would have been removed in the first instance itself. To further elaborate the puffery, please follow the following text from the article; 1. "He became the party's convenor for good governance in the state" and 2. "Doval conceptualized 'Bemisaal Garhwal' under the banner of 'Buland Uttarakhand' which aims to improve the quality of education and health in Uttarakhand." Now, if we look at the -  Citation Links 9 to 13... it's a pure case of WP: CITEKILL. My mind boggles, how come these important inputs have been missed by the reviewers? (not one but by many) Yes, the entity has the potential to have a Wikipedia page but not now, maybe in near future and that too depends on how this entity evolves down the line. Because right now I'm not able to understand how we should classify or categorize him. Shall we count him as an entrepreneur/businessman? - no, because he has not been part of any notable business or business house. Shall we count him as a politician? - no, because he has not won a single election at the federal or state level. Shall we count him as an academician? - no, because he has no academic credentials (related to his think tank) to support via Google Scholar, Scopus, or any major bibliographical index. Nevertheless, whatever would be the verdict of this AfD - it would have my full support. But, it's high time for us as editors/reviewers to start introspecting about our involvement in such AfD discussions which directly undermines the very essence of this platform and at the same moment... wastes everyone's time. I apologize to everyone for my blunt comment.  - Hatchens (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per rationale by, The source analysis, which I agree with and also learnt a few things from. There are enough sources to demonstrate that GNG is met and that 1E does not apply. Princess of Ara  19:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:, We all are involved in a civilized discussion so kindly don't get agitated and try to be polite. I apologize for those so-called "scattershot arguments" as you have termed them. Maybe I lack the level of intelligence required to address your level of thought process. So, please bear with me for the following additions to those "scattershot arguments". When I raised the issue of puffery; you being a strong advocate for this entity could have addressed it by voluntarily editing the page and getting qualified as per WP:HEY. But, you will not because you think that you can play the ball by calling shots from outside and try to influence the AfD by changing the basic definitions of the arguments by calling them "scattershots". Its typical astroturfing tactic.Now, let's discuss the links. According to you, it's me who has raised the concerns about the number of citations. You're correct. So, now your goal post has changed from LINK 1, 2, and 3 to LINK 9, 10, and 11 which happens to be from the stable of Indian Express and Hindustan Times - out of which the first two links can be counted as the part of WP:RSP. Let's ignore that hijacked discussion on HT in the last AfD. Since the first link is in a native language I guess a simple google chrome online translation can reveal enough information behind it. I wonder why are you not able to read or shown any intent to translate the links despite endorsing this entity with such great conviction. See, I never endorse anybody without checking the facts (no matter what language it is published). By the way, it seems and you share a great camaraderie. Excellent, we always encourage such teaming up but without undermining the Wikipedia guidelines. Now, as you have noticed that I admitted that "the entity has the potential to have a Wikipedia page", with which you concur, but this is NOT THAT PAGE. It means the entity qualifies for WP:TOOSOON - a straight and simple interpretation. I guess you might have missed it but it's ok, I am here to remind you and keep you on track.Now, as you have rightly noticed I'm not able to classify or categorize this entity. As you also agree with my concern and as you said on the talk page that "he is, at best, an aspiring politician"... well my dear friend that's not the actual reason for WP:NPOL qualification. You got to win some elections - federal or state.  And, for god sake, don't compare this such nice gentleman with Paul the Octopus - this is not a valid reason to compare at all. In fact, as a well-versed reviewer or editor, one shouldn't compare pages. Every entity qualifies for a Wikipedia page on its own merit. Finally, as you figured it out that I chastised those who are wasting everyone's time and you do agree with my view. So, I thank you for your understanding and looking forward to your kind support in the near future. -Hatchens (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While I can definitely see merits to DDG's argument that notability is not inherited and the concerns raised over whether or not these sources would have been written without the subject's familial connections, the fact of the matter is the sources do exist and Shaurya Doval is the main subject of multiple sources in reliable independent publications. As such, GNG has been met.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It passes WP:BASIC and is certainly a boring article about nepotism, but if being interesting was a requirement, we'd be deleting many more articles on Wikipedia. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation for us s to have a separate article for everyonepassingthe GNG. We've always combined information on fmaily memberswho haveno specfc accomplismentsof their own: it does not lose the information or the references, andits easy enough to find. What it lacks is the prestige from having a separate WP page. I don't think that's enough basis for an article, when the coverage is so closely related to the iondividual's position in the family.  DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would recommend a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation on the basis of three major attempts to create this entity's page in last 3 months. Based on its outcome, a decision can be taken for SALTING There is a high possibility is a WP:SPA, having WP:COI. And as per it's editing history, the user has worked on three pages of same political party and marked one for an AfD to throw us off from the track. - Hatchens (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I agree that this article could possibly be selectively merged and redirected to Ajit Doval, but I don’t think it’s a mandatory option. At AFD, merge is really only the best outcome when it’s the only option when a subject doesn’t meet GNG. This one does, so a merge discussion at WP:PAM without the threat of deletion is really the proper forum to make that decision. I would suggest making a formal merge proposal after this AFD closes (provided it is kept). Best.
 * a merge can  reasonably be done directly--I tend not to like unnecessary bureaucratic steps.Of course, merge does have the "advantage" of being a much less visible process. A even less visible way that sometimes has been employed  is to ensure that the basic information is added to the main article, and then redirect--this takes no discussion whatsoever unless it is noticed and challenged. I try to be more  forthright: If a decision however absurd goes  against my view, I wait an appropriate interval and try  again; if it goes repeatedly against my view, I stop trying. There are at least half a million equally dubious  articles to work on.
 * But looking again, I think my merge suggestion was not correct. In this particular instance, it's the present discussion which is aberrant. The argument that he should be included as the son of an official is against policy., There could however be an actual reason for keeping in his personal role. I doubt there is, but it is that which should have been argued, and the individual notability would be the think tank if anything. What I think the closer shoulddo is relist, and ask that it be argued on that basis alone, But if accepted,  that leaves the choice between doing nothing and letting the article stand, placing another afd in a few months, or goin to deletion review. I don't think it important enough to be worth trying further, and my inclination would be to  let what ever might be the closing stand.. As I said yesterday, there are half a million articles this dubious or worse. I'd go after the ones that are worse.  It's rarely worth fighting to delete an individual article against strong opposition unless there's an important principle at issue, If you think there is, I suggest AfD4 in 6 months.   DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Re your comment "The argument that he should be included as the son of an official is against policy", is anyone suggesting that as the 'keep' reason in this discussion? I am not seeing anyone arguing the article should be kept on that basis. I am only seeing editors assert what you describe as "individual notability". Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sure, he's the son of a prominent figure; that does not mean we discount all coverage of him, only that coverage which is directly the result of the family relationship. And I'm genuinely baffled as to why sources such as, , , , and are not seen as qualifying toward GNG. They are all reliable; they are all intellectually independent; and they all contain substantive content about the subject of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with V93. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2021 (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.