Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Bishnoi

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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Bishnoi

[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)

Non-notable individual; sourcing used is paid PR pieces (Forbes) or a PR piece self-published by the company mentioned in the PR piece. Sources turn up a gangster with a similar name, nothing for this individual. Appears promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, India, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is justified by mentions in other news sources like [1] or [2]. I don't think this person is wealthy enough to pay for every single mention he has on reliable sources. The other Bishnoi being more mentioned because of his evil actions does not make this one less relevant, sources are just more buried. Bradford (Talk) 11:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although Yahoo and a few other sources give it space, it needs significant coverage per WP:BASIC like other Bishnoi. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that the individual's references are ranked worse than another individual with the same name should not influence the removal of the article, reliable and independent sources are required, which, although not many, this individual has. Franco98silva (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that the references do not meet (1) significant coverage, (2) independent (includes PR-agency authored work), (3) reliable (Forbes, need I say more?), (4) secondary source. Rhadow (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reading WP:NEXIST: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.", and clarifying that point, the Sachin criminal is better positioned in English, however, by doing a quick search in Spanish, new reliable and independent sources can be found, such as [3] or [4]. If we deepen the search we can find new reliable sources. Xillegas (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My opinion is the same as Xillegas, the article can be maintained and obviously it can be Wikified and made more extensive as much as possible.--Luis1944MX (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I find are short puff-pieces, kind of "look at this guy!" sort of thing. The best that I see is the El Farandi article but I don't know where that publication stands in the world of entrepreneurs - it looks to be a TMZ-like entertainment site. Finding sources in major publications would make this more convincing. Lamona (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my assessment, this case lacks notability, and I concur with Lamona's observation Almeida Fernando (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment: The article references have been changed and additional information has been added, the article now complies with more information and references.Bradford (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sourced to puff pieces or regurgitated press releases - no serious independent coverage of the individual.-KH-1 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep: I question a bit if the previous votes actually read all the references in the article, the person complies with WP:BASIC~~

Notoriety is based on the existence of adequate sources, not on the status of the sources
The reference section doesn't really matter, however there are others that are included in the technology and economics section
That the other Sachin is better positioned in English has no influence on the notoriety of this Sachin
WB:BIO for example specifically states: avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g. Google results).

The rules state that if an article can be fixed through normal editing then it is not a candidate for Afd, the main problem was the references however it has been shown that the person has reliable and independent sources so the problem was editing, being fixed then it is no longer a candidate for deleting search WP:BEFORE consequently the article should be maintainedSawelito (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Striking - this is a sock of the article's author, who has already cast a !vote here. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I did look at each of the references in the article, plus other sources that I found. First, I do think it is odd that most of the references are from South American sites, (his businesses are presumably in India although that is not made clear), and none of those sites provide much in the line of editorial integrity. One self-describes as a blog post. The ones that I did find in English are all paid entries, like this one in forbes and this one in Life and Style. Looking under his company name, GoGo Capital, I find PR pieces like this. I also note that many of the sources in the article are entertainment/celebrity focused, which makes it odd that they have an article about a supposed tech entrepreneur. It would not be unreasonable to wonder if those aren't paid placements, as the ones in Forbes and Life and Style are. BTW, the link to Life and Style for some reason redirects to an article about Lindsay Lohan. Lamona (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is logical that the sources are in Spanish, I am from Latin America, the sources that I get are mostly in Spanish. Although, that shouldn't be a problem.Bradford (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I am not finding reliable sources in any language that would show that he is notable as an entrepreneur. If he were, my Google searches that default to English would turn them up, as business activity in India would be likely to have English as one of its languages. Lamona (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First batch of sources included blatant SEO/PR paid placement; current sources are awful.

elfarandi - Silly adcopy on an "entertainment" site, repeats large blocks of verbatium PR text
lapatilla - Again, adcopy in the "entertainment" section, repeats same block of PR
caraotadigital - Blog post that again copies the same material from a press release
diariolaregion - Brief post with gushing adcopy language.
radaronline - Just complete puffery and spam posted in a "pop culture, celebrity, and entertainment" site.

Searching for other sources turns up a tremendous number of clearly identified paid placements, and a lot of the black hat SEO farms. I just could not locate anything that even remotely looked like genuine earned media, and certainly nothing detailed or reliable. Given the sock games played on this AFD, and the just plain wrong 'keep' votes, I'm not seeing any reason to reward the obvious UDPE here. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Outlook India and Mid-Day sources presented above by User:Bradford are tagged as "Outlook Spotlight" and "BrandMedia" respectively, which are the advertising sections of these two publications. All other sources, including the newly-added Spanish sources, are similar paid advertorials. A clear WP:NBIO fail. Maduant (talk) 23:33, 12 February 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.