Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Kamath

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. Personally, I don't care for articles like this on person's whose notability is because they are wealthy. But three reliable sources should be sufficient to justify a person's notability. I think there is some promotional language in this article that could be toned down. For example, I don't think being a guest at the While House is a really strong indicator of notability. But that's my point of view and doesn't affect this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Kamath

[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)

The page is repeatedly created with proven blocked, COI history. The majority of the sources are coming from Newswire and are not independent. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see three reliables sources mainly Al Jazeera, Bloomberg and Forbes and do think the rest of the sources are not reliable enough to remain as an article. Untamed1910 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) The article was accepted by an AFC reviewer just a week back. How can an article which was reviewed at AFC needs to be deleted in just seven days? If there are any issues with the article then discuss on its talk page or fix it directly rather than nominating it multiple times for speedy deletion or AFD. 2) The subject is extensively covered by Indian National Media - Times of India, Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, Forbes and also by some International Media - Aljazeera, Bloomberg, Forbes and South China Morning Post. All of the aforementioned media are considered as reliable as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources . The article has more than 25 such sources which are considered as reliable at Wikipedia. Himalayan7914 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said only Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, Forbes, China Morning Post are listed as reliable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, do not appear on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list, there is no way of knowing if Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV are reliable enough. Untamed1910 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Untamed1910 , I think you haven't gone through the entire list properly. The Indian Express and The Hindu are also mentioned as most reliable (in the green legend) in the list. The article also has many more sources from the most reliable medias and today I have added a few more. I am listing down all the sources from the article by Most Reliable Media below for better understanding:

Al Jazeera - [1]

Bloomberg - [2] [3]

Barrons (Wall Street Journal) - [4]

Forbes - [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Indian Express - [11] [12] [13]

South China Morning Post - [14] [15]

The New York Times - [16]

The Hindu - [17] [18] [19]

Yahoo Finance - [20]

There are many more such coverages from Indian National and Regional media from yellow legend section (no consensus on the reliability) too but they are considered as reputed here in India. However, I think the above coverages from the Most Reliable medias are more than sufficient to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Himalayan7914 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Majority of sources shared are nothing more than interviews where there is no independent comment of a journalist. Example: Aljazeera, Bloomberg, barrons, forbes, Forbes published by outsider, interview, ForbesIndia Interview again, Story of non notable company which is already been deleted multiple times , Interview PTI News, PR Material published on various news, PR Newswire, again interview Lordofhunter (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Defiantly passing WP:GNG, this, this, and this looks good to me. And all of them are reliable sources. Forbes listed him as the self-made billionaire. Forbes India listed him 30 under 30. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2023 (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.