Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul A. Singh

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. Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Singh[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)

Subject appears not to meet WP:GNG. Previously prodded, and draftified and returned to mainspace without substantial improvement in source quality, so per WP:DRAFTOBJECT taking to AfD. All currently-cited sources comprise passing or trivial mentions. I was unable to find additional coverage of Paul Singh in academic sources or in news coverage (e.g. the British Newspaper Archive). Despite plentiful sources on the history of dashcam adoption, the subject appears not to have received significant coverage in those sources. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Suriname, Happy to help out with your cutting research. I've just been over press cuttings in the Press Reader system, and there are several more press cuttings on Paul Singh which couldn't be included to the wikipedia references because they were print only.
1. Yorkshire Post, Sept 2015 in an article entited "Footage Admissible in Court Due to Special Software" refers directly to Singh's SmartWitness camera footage which was now admissible in court as proof of fault in accidents and in insurance disputes. This was a major breakthrough for motoring disputes.
2. Western Mail, May 2016 - reports on Singh's call for cameras to be compulsory for autonomous vehicles.
3. Daily Star, reported Singh's findings that British trucking firms had been fined £60m in fines for having stowaways onboard coming back into the UK from the continent.
4. Daily Express, July 2018 reported on Singh's findings that July 21, would be the busiest day on British roads and that motorists should be careful to avoid accidents.
5. Daily Express, Oct 2018, reported on Singh's evidence on growing incidents of commuter road rage, especially between motorists and cyclists. I am happy to send you copies of all of these print cuttings if you like, or you can see them in the Press Reader search here - https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=%22paul%20singh%22%20smartwitness&in=ALL&date=Anytime&hideSimilar=0&type=2&state=2 So as you can see Singh's work on road safety goes back over years, and these sources are independent, varied and all refer to Paul Singh in person.
Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean Matthew Obrien, unfortunately, none of those sources constitute significant coverage. The Yorkshire Post article doesn't mention Singh at all, and the other newspaper articles are trivial mentions. Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Sources 2-4 would be perfectly acceptable reliable, secondary sources for verifying that Singh was CEO of SmartWitness, but don't meet the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note these five print newspaper sources are in addition to the other 12 digital sources cited. Also road safety and dashcams are seldom the topic of national newspapers so it's remarkable that there is this much coverage. Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the currently-cited digital sources have the same problems: not addressing Singh directly, or being trivial name-checks. One common piece of advice at AfD is WP:THREE: much less impressive than many low-quality sources are 2-3 high-quality sources with a depth of information. You're more likely to persuade commenters to vote Keep by giving them a small list of high-quality sources that demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Daily Star and Express aren't RS. Yorkshire post is meh. I don't see much more for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources for you. The Independent ran a piece on the SmartWitness campaign for children's road safety in 2016 . [1] AutoExpress ran a story about how SmartWitness was helping motorists with the steep rise in cash for crash incidents in 2014.[2] Another cash for crash incident was reported in Surrey Live in 2014.[3] Paul Singh also did research into how cash for crash hotspots were affecting car insurance premiums which appeared in Daily Mail. [4] and Fleet News [5] in 2014. I'm happy to add these to the wiki entry.

There are quite a few stories in Daily Mail online also about road safety, but I believe Wikipedia does not recognise DM online as source material. [6] Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These would be great, if they discussed Paul Singh directly and in depth. (Singh is not mentioned in any of the linked sources.) Are you aware of other reporting that directly discusses Singh and his role in this important research? Suriname0 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suriname0, all the work and campaigns of the SmartWitness company were driven by Paul Singh and were created by him. Some pieces quote him by name, but not all. That's journalistic style unfortunately but the company and everything that it did was driven by him. Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sean Matthew Obrien left an additional argument in favor of keeping the article on their user page. See here: User talk:Sean Matthew Obrien#Nomination of Paul A. Singh for deletion. Suriname0 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Oaktree b's assessment. It's not a matter of "journalistic style", significant coverage by reliable sources is very common for notable subjects. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 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.