Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supreeth Shankarghal


 * 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 a relatively close !vote, it appears that all of the keep !votes come from SPAs, which implies either sockpuppetry off-wiki canvassing. Regardless of which of those it is, this AfD clearly has decided to delete this article. ST47 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Supreeth Shankarghal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. per nom. Following a WP:BEFORE exercise, the only sources that I can find are of the "subject was quoted as saying X in the news" variety (many of which are linked/referenced in the article). Rather than where the subject is, himself, the topic of news. This type of thing (where, for example, a company executive is quoted or mentioned in pieces of news about his company or area) doesn't meet the WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH requirement. I can find no significant coverage of this type (where the subject himself has been covered substantively in the news, or a book, or a journal, or an academic study of similar). Otherwise, the article seems to be trying to establish notability by associating the subject with companies (or high value hedge funds) as a way of bolstering notability. (Like the stuff in the lead which seems to say "he is a partner in company X, which is an important company [and hence he is important]". Which falls into a WP:INHERITORG trap). The WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:NOTLINKEDIN overtones are also concerning. (Including the resumé style stuff down the end about his personal interests and hobbies. Which are very "CV like" in tone...). Anyway, mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Have noted the above comments duly and I did notice that personal life section has been removed as there were no references and did not meet Wikipedia standards. The concerned person has been quoted in several articles from the likes of Bloomberg and others. As far as the notability of the person is concerned,it's not my area to comment upon. The article has been well referenced and it is to be noted that in a country like India, the hedge fund industry is very new and nascent. There is no major awareness about hedge fund industry or the hedge fund managers unlike in the western world. Also the concerned person noting his age at that time would have been only 24 approximately when he was given the license to operate as a hedge fund (first in India) should be noted as well. The Indian securities regulator has the fund and his name in their list along with the date. The article seems to have been around for around three years or so. Also lastly would just like to bring to your attention that the concerned person has a Google knowledge box. Lastly, I am not as expereinced as other editors here. I respect whatever decision is taken here.Vijaybanner (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guliolopez. Simply doesn't meet notability standards. Most coverage is passing references and not SIGCOV. Given the promotional nature of the article I'd recommend WP:TNTing it even if he was notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Montrealking (talk)
 * Keep. The person also has the names Supreeth S M. https://www.bloomberg.com/search?query=Supreeth generated 32 articles directly or indirectly mentioning him. Also was able to get several interview articles on Economic Times website. The person seems notable enough for a Major television show to conduct a 1 hour show on Education campus. It's the wikipedia editor's role to remain as neutral as possible. We are not here to judge or voice our opinions. If there is reasonable proof a person's notability or relevance, who are we to judge whether someone is notable or not. The wiki page seems to well referenced and there was no dead links found. This is my honest opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Montrealking (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment New account, created solely to vote on this AfD. Likely sock. Likely COI. Edwardx (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Subject has a knowledge box in Google. So it would appear that people do search him for whatever reasons. One of the main links seems to be this article: https://www.livemint.com/Money/5nQjwov36Swa26944y0XyL/Hedge-fund-manager-who-predicted-Sensex-rally-says-its-time.html which was also covered by Bloomberg and few others. Bloomberg can certainly be treated as noteworthy reference. There are very few articles on Indian Finance executives. Its a keep on my side.Oxbridge1976 (talk)
 * Comment Another new account, created solely to vote on this AfD. Likely sock. Likely COI. Edwardx (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the wording of the above votes, it appears very likely that Montrealking and Oxbridge1976 are socks of Vijaybanner, who created the Supreeth Shankarghal article. Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I beg your pardon. I am not a sock of any account. Its true that this would be my first edit as I was coming across another notice of deletion, which happened to be of London based hedge fund manager Ana Cukic by the the same nominating editor. I was just curious to see the nominating editor create several new articles including bankers and yet is nominating well referenced article of bankers and financiers. It's just my two cents that one should try staying away from atleast one of the activity from a neutrality point of view. If one wants to take down articles, there are plenty of stubs and articles where there are very few references. The whole thing of nominating similar articles above sounds a bit personal given that the editor is creating such articles on the other side.Oxbridge1976 (talk)


 * Delete: Per nom. I don't know about possible sock connections but when I see new SPA accounts showing up specifically to !vote it definitely waves red flags. Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 31 May 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.