Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora


 * 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. The magnitude arguments referencing non-notability and insufficiency of sources to meet GNG result in a deletion close.  MBisanz  talk 18:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Trishneet Arora

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sesamevoila (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Article has apparently been created by subject of the article, going by the username which is a single purpose self-promotion account (WP:SPA)
 * The only other significant contributors to this article even 3 weeks after creation are multiple  IPs. Promotional content added by these IPs has been reverted by other editors
 * Notability (WP:GNG) is questioned despite apparent references in newspapers  since these are online editions limited to a single city. The book apparently written by the subject is not available  in online stores.
 * A similar article had earlier been CSD'd
 * IP has also removed the AfD template Sesamevoila (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * it will be release this month you can read news paper articles he said it will be release in this September. and Attrition.org is also uploaded about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.207.251 (talk • contribs) -- page unblanked & comment moved by  Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 08:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 28.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  08:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. No opinion either way, but I did do a cleanup of the article and removed some sources that wouldn't be seen as usable as reliable sources per Wikipedia. I tried to smooth the grammar out somewhat as well as remove some of the peacock language. (This is language that can be seen as overly promotional or flattering to the subject, in this case the author.) Again, no opinion either way.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. I've left a message on the original editor's page explaining a bit about the template for AfD, but I also wanted to post this link to YouTube here: It's not the official news site so we can't link to it in the article, but I did want to show that there's been some television coverage. Much of the coverage for Arora seems to be relatively recent, but there's quite a bit of it. I'm not as familiar with sources in India so I'm still abstaining for the moment, but again- there's a lot of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No "significant coverage". WP:NOTNEWS: He being a 18-year old hacker is covered as newspapers as one-off news. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep He has been the primary subject of articles by multiple Reliable Source publications - and that's even before his book comes out. He is clearly regarded as something of a phenomenon in India. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Redtigerxyz. --regentspark (comment) 02:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep In-depth coverage in so many secondary sources makes this topic clearly notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be somewhat in depth, but as mentioned above it's one off. Just because I get a mention in a newspaper once, doesn't particularly make me notable. Even if I claim to be writing a book. (crystal ball perhaps?) I can't find any sources on the book other than a brief mention in the sourced newspapers. As Carrite mentions below, it seems self-promo. I think wait until the book hits the shelves, or there's more coverage. Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 16:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sourcing relates to the novelty of a young hacker writing a new book. The piece is essentially self-promotional in intent. I wish him well and hope he sells lots of copies, invents a killer app, whatever — but this one doesn't clear the GNG bar, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete self promo, concerns with notability. One-off news paper article doesn't cut it. Wait for the book to be released or more coverage, imo Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 16:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Redtigerxyz and Carrite. Everyone can become an ethical hacker, write a book, or found a startup company. Sure, he may be rather young at his age, but as long as neither his book nor his company becomes notable he isn't notable either by our policies. Nageh (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – because this individual passes WP:BASIC and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Period. Some source examples include, , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 07:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources pretty much come down to WP:1E regarding publication of the individual's (upcoming) book. The notability, reliability, and independence of seems questionable, and the fact that a link is given to this non-text-searchable e-paper source has a smell of self-promotion. Let's wait for established notability. Or in the individual's own words: "Even though people might not know about me, but my company would be among the respected companies in the next few years, he says." Let's see. Nageh (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep –  I want to tell that this guy is so young and written a book it is proud for all we should be appreciated  and he is listed in list of Ethical Hakcers page of wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_hacker#List_of_White_Hat_Hackers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.116.180 (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep –  Here is link of Wikipedia posted about him in list of computer security experts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_security#Notable_people_in_computer_security — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.189.131 (talk • contribs)
 * Unaccountable (and possibly duplicate) vote. This was an arbitrary list of mostly (self-declared) hackers (and not of security experts), recently added by your geographical area and within an Indian class B IP subnet who spammed the link to multiple articles across Wikipedia. The list has now been removed. Nageh (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep We should appreciate him self because he had done so good work at early age you can think about him he is just 18 and written book on cyber crime its amazing i think so but we should keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.143.158 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – we have to keep this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.181.104 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment tonne of apparent sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry from IP editors commenting here. Continuosly stating 'keep' without a proper argument isn't going to help you, this isn't a !vote it is consensus. Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 08:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also going to leave this diff here. In the case this gets deleted, his name should be removed from here. Even if it stays I'm not sure if he's important enough to warrant a listing for births  Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 08:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the list reference is on his official site, leading me to believe the listing (and the entire article) is self promotion. Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 10:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – I want to know the reason why you want to Delete dear, this is useful information for all and this guy is so popular so what to do just tell me this thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.221.127 (talk • contribs)
 * Another sock/meatpuppet. Please stop spamming keep, it won't help. Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 14:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I found one reference, Indian Express August 12, 2012. Northamerica1000 listed other references above. From these, the topic meets WP:GNG. I agree with MelanieN, Northamerica1000, and Vibhijain. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:1E. Nageh (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be blatant self-promotion. Perhaps, in due course he may attain the notability required. At the moment, we seem to be dealing primarily with assumptions.--Zananiri (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple independent reliable sources (5) discuss the subject in depth. The COI/SPA/Self-promotion arguments are irrelevant. Our job at AdF is to determine if the article has enough sources to establish notability, not to punish someone(s) for breaking a rule. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What about WP:1E? I can't find any sources on the book, other than the few one off articles. Also, AfD is not just about notability. Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 04:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "What about 1E?" It's a biography article not a book article. The sources are all biographical, not book reviews.
 * "AfD is not just about notability" - The article is well sourced and notable, that's all that is needed. It is unfair to me that you would try to delete because of bad behavior of some other user. AfD is purely a content dispute, you're mixing in a behavior dispute with this person(s) as a reason to delete is not fair to me. I am only concerned with the content. So should you. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking at the behavior of the user. Trishneet Arora was covered as one off news because he is a young hacker. There is no sourcing of his book, I can't find anything about it. The sources merely says he is working on a book. He doesn't hold world records, even then I've seen AfDs of people who hold world records and still aren't notable. Think about it: I am 18 years old and I say I am going to write a book on hacking. I get coverage in the press, primarily a local newspaper. Does that make me notable? By the way, I'm not mixing in the COI / SPA arguments, read above, you may have confused me with someone else. I never said that, although I did have concerns that the article was created with the intent of self promotion. I just notified the editor that spamming keep votes doesn't affect anything. I'm not trying to sound rude or anything, sorry if you took it that way. :) Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK re: SPA/COI I wasn't sure what you meant by AfD being about more than notability. Re: 1E, being a hacker is not a 1E (unless he is known for only doing 1 hack/event). Trishneet Arora is a human interest story, there are many human interest stories on Wikipedia about people who do certain things and get oft-reported in the news. We don't really care why he is notable, just that he apparently is, based on the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Express article merely repeats what
 * Arora claims. It is written by a reporter not a specialist in the field.--Zananiri (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Very few reporters are specialists in the field they are reporting on. It doesn't negate the reliability of the source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not just the Express article, virtually all of the biographical information cited in the article is based on interviews with the subject, and is not independently verified. Sesamevoila (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Any biographical article is going to be informed by interviews with the subject, preferably, that's how journalism works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * DELETE for non-notability. §§ §§ {T/C} 09:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding "Not a Ballot" template for all possible socks. §§ §§ {T/C} 09:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Since this AfD discussion has been going around in circles for quite some time, I thought I would dig a little deeper and called up the publisher mentioned in the news articles (since the book was not showing up in their online catalogue at ). They first said no such book was being published by them, but when I referenced the news articles, they did some further investigation and reported back that such a book had indeed been under consideration for publication, but had been withdrawn due to "legal problems", usually a euphemism for you-know-what. If this cannot be a consideration in the discussion re. Verifiability, not truth(does that at all apply in AfD discussions?), then please ignore it-this is only my 2nd AfD nomination.
 * India-related articles such as this are becoming quite the bane because the general Indian reader is not sufficiently clued-in to distinguish the varying degrees of reliability of Wikipedia articles, and takes a biographical  entry as evidence of a subject's notability and reliability. Sesamevoila (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting aside, but I'm not sure it tells us much because we really have no idea what the situation is. The article is based on existing sources, even if the book isn't published it doesn't change the existing sources. We are not trying to establish objective notability, just notability by Wikipedia standards, which is multiple independent reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (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.