Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keshav Suri

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. Regarding User:Alivenkicking's comment, he is notable but the current content/sources are not doing justice to his notability, please note that we define notability as the existence of sources. All of the myriad notability guidelines are just hints that if a person has done X, there's probably sources, so we can short-cut the search and assume they exist. But, it's still the sources that rule. If you're saying that his activities are not being covered in WP:RS, then by definition, he's not notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Suri[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a businessman and activist, whose claims of notability for either endeavour are not properly referenced. Three of the seven footnotes are glancing namechecks of his existence in the context of a charitable foundation, but contain no content about him to help establish his notability; a fourth is a social media clickbait site being used only to support the name of his partner, rather than anything relevant to whether he clears an inclusion criterion or not; a fifth is essentially just excerpts of him speaking about himself, rather than third-party journalism about him; a sixth is just a very brief blurb about him once having been bitten by bedbugs; and the only source in the entire bunch that actually meets all of the necessary conditions (i.e. reliable and independent and substantively about him) is covering him solely in the context of having once "won the internet" with a viral Instagram video. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make somebody notable per WP:GNG, because even the strongest source isn't covering him in a context that has anything to do with whether he clears a Wikipedia inclusion criterion or not, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more references for the subject. Will be good to quickly check him and his work by putting the subject name in Google. The article can for sure use more references and sources and in fact more material, but I barely think that the notability of the subject can be questioned. Alivenkicking (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two new references you've added is still a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, so it can be used for verification of additional facts after GNG has already been covered off but does not count toward the initial question of whether he clears GNG in the first place. Entrepreneur finally gets him off the starting blocks as a source that actually meets all of the necessary factors — reliable, independent, substantively about him, and existing in a potentially noteworthy context — but it still takes more than just one source of that caliber to actually get him to the finish line. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your response. I would wait for other editors to chime in and see their opinions as well and then edit it further. I am sure they can have more inputs on how to improve it further and I will consolidate all the inputs and edit at one go. Will that be okay?

Alivenkicking (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree with Bearcat's assessment of the sources. Some don't mention Keshav Suri, some only in passing, several are Keshav Suri talking about himself. In total, he falls short of the standards of notability. Huon (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, following the comments and analysis of the fellow editors, I searched more and I could dig out more sources. I could find Forbes, Vogue, Mumbai Mirror, Indian Express and few others; and I have included them. There are few others I found which are more in an interview-format and since we established that such kind of sources can only verify more information but can not act as a basis to qualify GNG, I have refrained from using those. Now, I see two ways here...first is that while being cognizant that he is a strong business leader and is running a multi-crore company along with that he has significant contribution for the LGBTQ community - we say he is not notable and delete the page. Second, we understand that he is notable but the current content/sources are not doing justice to his notability and hence, we either move it to drafts to improvise; or delete it and wait to see if any significant independent reliable coverage comes that can verify his notability. Please suggest. Alivenkicking (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.