Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddhant Vats


 * 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. Despite some arguing in favor of keeping it citing some sources, there is consensus that does sources are not sufficient to justify an article about this person at this time. Even most of those arguing for deletion agree that the product Vats created might be notable even if he is not, so he might get a mention in such an article if it was created. Regards  So Why  12:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Siddhant Vats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability; all sources are just passing mentions, the vast majority of the content about Siddhant Vats himself in the draft is unreferenced. I looked for better references and didn't find anything that would allow a meaningful improvement of the article. Was prodded by Piotrus, prod contested by Ronks123 who used to intern for Siddhant. Huon (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, please let me know how to use proper citations so that I could make it better. I have removed lines which were not referenced, and every line in the article is properly referenced with a newspaper article. What else can we do to make it properly cited? Thanks Ronks123 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) — Ronks123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The references already present within the article, specifically from the London Evening Standard and the Times of India, prove that the requirements of WP:GNG have been met. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. The Times of India is decent coverage, but the Evening Standard is about a product, not the person. Even if the product is notable, notability isn't inherited. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG.    Yvarta (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Times of India piece about the monastery doesn't provide any in-depth coverage of the person; it's more about the monastery project. The Telegraph India piece is a trivial mention. The second Times of India article is OK. The Evening Standard piece is about a product, not the person. Aren't there any other examples of actual significant coverage besides that one single Times of India article? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I greatly disagree with your analysis.
 * The Times of India piece about the monastery doesn't provide any in-depth coverage of the person; it's more about the monastery project. - I'm baffled by your analysis here. The title is "Teen entrepreneur helps build monastery in Bodhgaya, so clearly it is more about him than the monastery. Also, probably 80 percent of the content is about him, not the monastery.
 * Telegraph India piece is a trivial mention.- the article is short, but almost half of the content focuses on Vats and his motivations for the donation, not just the monastery. Also, the title makes it clear the topic is foreign aid, not the monastery in general, and the main philanthropist mentioned under that auspice is Vats himself. So, it is about his entrepreneurship, i.e. him.
 * The second Times of India article is OK. -- much like the first.
 * The Evening Standard piece is about a product, not the person. You are wrong. The title reads "One to watch … London teenager invents computer for your wrist." The article is about Vats and his achievement, and although the journalist goes into specs for about a third of the article, the product is the side topic. Yvarta (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree all you want, it doesn't change the facts. The first one you linked is coverage of the monastery and a donation, not even providing significant coverage of the topic in the title, and devotes all of four sentences to the person. The Telegraph piece devotes all of 3 sentences, no in-depth coverage of the subject at all, and provides a quotation which doesn't count for notability. The Evening Standard is definitely about the watch, also providing almost zero in-depth coverage of the subject, instead covering the product and the team, and quoting the subject, which makes it more of a primary source (an interview) than reliable secondary source coverage, and therefore doesn't confer notability on the subject. We have just a handful of sentences actually about the subject among those 3 sources. Not sufficient, not notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I stand by the view that this is the usual vanity bio written by a COI PR person for a PR stunt (creator:, SPA; request for undeletion: , SPA, op mentioned "intern for" the subject...). Of course, COI/paid editing are not sufficient reasons for deletion, but they are red flags to keep in mind. The refs are poor: summary of interview followign a PR event, same event, same shoddy reporting, similar low quality reporting on him attending a conference, based on interview and PR materials, mentions in passing in an article about the watch. Those are poor quality sources of dubious reliability, and they do not cover the subject in depth. This article is a PR stunt, we should not be a vehicle for promotion of such vanity. We are an encyclopedia, not a display case for PR professionals (or interns...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The Times of India and Evening Standard refs look sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, if only barely. The other refs are fluff or worse. -- Finngall   talk  14:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Change to delete - per Anachronist's correct analysis. That's enough to tip the scales.  But no prejudice against recreation if the product takes off and results in better non-PR coverage of the person behind it. -- Finngall   talk  16:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Anachronist's analysis is not correct, I suggest you read the new analysis above. Yvarta (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My analysis was correct. I suggest you read my response. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The Times of India is the only example of significant coverage of the subject. The Evening Standard piece is about a product, not the person, and as we all know, notability is not inherited. The TedX site is a primary source, not coverage. The other sources either give trivial mention or no mention at all. I agree with Piotrus that this is a vanity biography that exists on Wikipedia not to impart encyclopedic information, but to generate publicity for the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that this person's only claim of notability would be the inventor of the first Android smartwatch. That's worth a mention in the smartwatch article but I am not seeing a case for a stand-alone article about the inventor. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Added a CNET reference to give significant coverage about the smartwatch. Misrasing13 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Misrasing13 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is another article about the product, which does not equate to establishing notability for the person, especially given that this article does not even mention the person at all. -- Finngall   talk  17:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. An article that doesn't even mention the subject has zero relevance to notability of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the massive paid editing issues the article had in the past, I'm not at all surprised to see brand new accounts popping up here. Huon (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not WP:Cast aspersions, yeah? If you do have doubts about the intent of other editors, you can bring that up at the appropriate forum, so reputations aren't hurt based on assumption.Yvarta (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate to identify single-purpose accounts in an AFD discussion, to aid the reviewing administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to draft and give the editors six months to bring the article up to encyclopedic standards, or see it deleted. bd2412  T 11:30, 3 April 2017 (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.