Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Maheshwari

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. It seems like a consensus has developed - grounded on a detailed source analysis - that the topic isn't notable, has promotionalism concerns and should be salted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Maheshwari[edit]

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

Sandeep Maheshwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created and deleted over seven times so was salted against future recreation. On looking into it, each article had been very badly written and poorly sourced, such that it was difficult to see if the subject had any notability. I did some research and found some sources, so decided to help form an article using decent sources. I think notability has now been established, though it is fairly borderline, and a number of the sources that looked good on first glance turned out to be plausible looking blogs or self-published books - something which is fairly common in India. What concerned me as I worked on the article was that even the reliable sources were simply repeating dubious information from the subject's own website. So some facts are hard to verify - for example a number of sources say Maheshwari has "A Pioneer of Tomorrow Award by ET Now" - but research indicates there is no award by that name - there is a "Leaders of Tomorrow Award" given by ET Now, but no Pioneer of Tomorrow. This is clearly a translation error, but it is interesting that any search for Pioneer of Tomorrow Award given by ET Now only returns results which mention Maheshwari, and that the information in those sources mirrors that of Maheshwari's own website. It is clear that Maheshwari is self-promotional, and has used the Indian media well. But despite that, I feel notability has been established given the number of major Indian sources which mention him in detail.

Listing here because of the deletion history of this subject. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Subject is discussed by several notable Indian newspapers for both their ImagesBazzar business and their YouTube channel, and we now do accept YouTube personalities - List of YouTubers. SilkTork (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the contention vis-a-vis List of YouTubers. What does the existence of the list have to do with an individual article? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging DGG who has !voted to delete biography where 1.2 million Instagram followers was asserted ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subjects notability is proved not only by his YouTube channel but also as the owner of images bazaar.Kashish pall (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said at the AfD being referrred to, " . The article. is clearly promotional -- and the combination of promotionalism and dubious or borderline notability is an excellent reason for deletion. If anything , the promotionalism is more important--we do not accept promotional articles no matter how notable the subject" The number of followers is thus not the key factor. If it were, I think our precedent is against considering it to prove notability ; I personally have in the past been open to considering great popularity to imply notability, but I am not sure I would say the same now, because of the rise of promotionalism; using this as a deciding factor would in practice encourage promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional and fails NBIO to boot. The section about his businesses can be discarded. The section about awards has issues pointed out by the nominator. The section about the YT channel is irrelevant -- subscribers does not equate to notability. The remaining biographical stuff is too slight and insubstantial to hold up NBIO. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:: If it is so then why Ashish Chanchlani is there?Kashish pall (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not persuasive here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amplifying on the sourcing problems in §Enterpreneur. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and sources strictly about the business, not the individual, aren't useful here. This is the case for source #3. Source #1 is very weakly useful -- it mentions his college prior to dropping out. Sources #9 and #10 are interviews and therefore obviously do not help establish notability defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In summary, the sources in this section mirror the problems overall -- either way too distant from the subject, or way too close. There just isn't enough independent material specifically about this individual for an encyclopedic biography. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-salt Yesterday, I tried cleaning up the article to see what would remain once some unreliable sourcing was removed; from the article and talkpage history I see that SilkTork has made a similar effort in face of continual addition of more dubious and promotional content. The more closely I look at the sourcing, the more obvious it becomes that this whole thing is a house of cards with no independent reporting/verification of the subjects claims, and that the recent article revival is likely a continuation of COI/undisclosed paid editing seen before. See below for an analysis of the major available sources:
Source analysis

Sandeep Maheshwari is a name among millions who struggled, failed and surged ahead in search of success, happiness and contentment. Just like any middle class guy, he too had a bunch of unclear dreams and a blurred vision of his goals in life...

— www.sandeepmaheshwari.com

Sandeep Maheshwari's name is included in the list of people who struggled, failed but did not give up their insistence to succeed. Like a young man from any middle class family, he too had vague dreams and blurred goals...

— Google translation of the Bhaskar article

On Sandeep's own website, he introduces himself like this- 'Sandeep Maheshwari is one of the millions of names who have struggled, failed and progressed in search of success. Like any middle-class boy, he too had many vague dreams and blurred vision of life's goals...

— Google translation of the News18 article
Worse, these articles uncritically repeat false claims, such as that of the subject having set a world record, which the credited source does not claim.
Given the dearth of reliable independent sources, the subject fails the WP:GNG requirements. As for notability as an entrepreneur: while the circa 2009-10 recognition by BW and British council (neither of which are notable awards by themselves) do show early promise, there is no independent indication that the businesses that were started were successful, or are even an ongoing enterprise. And, as a Youtube personality, there is little to go on besides the follower count. Finally, the article history outlined by SilkTork and the analaysis of the sources above, indicates that there has been a concerted effort at promotion of the subject on- and off-wiki; so we should be extra careful in examining sources so that we don't simply end up regurgitating poorly recycled content from the subject's self-written bio. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC) (Fixed a link. Abecedare (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I have changed few things I think it requires one more look. You have wrong mentioned here about Bhaskar the link is going to news 18 and Bhaskar is just now I added. Kashish pall (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the cut-n-paste error. I have fixed the link to the Bhaskar article in my above post. Abecedare (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
credited source it is not necessary the book contains all records of India as it is of 2018 book while Sandeep Maheshwari made record in 2003 . As per your wish I put one YouTube source to prove it I know it can't prove notability but still I put to prove it.
Sandeep Maheshwari already explore his story publicly since from 2009 on CNBC TV 18, IBN7 etc. And then again on his site and on his seminars of YouTube videos in 2012 and again on 2017 . He couldn't lie repeatedly and News 18 and Bhaskar use few information and only by analysing the reality of his life. We can use the information and if any dought create we couldn't use the material which seems to be copied but can use those information which is not copied from his site. Kashish pall (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more link of Anandabazar [1] . This is an eastern side news paper while Sandeep Maheshwari lives in northern side. So definitely they do some searches definitely and all the newspapers can't be write wrong information. Means something is true in these sources. This is his fault that he told his story to everyone and everywhere. Kashish pall (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. When looking towards the article editiors should check the List of Youtubers as there are few Youtuber who has border line notability like Ashish Chanchlani. It has total four references.Kashish pall (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not persuasive here. Plus, lists have different criteria than standalone articles; WP:CSC. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's a mistake.Kashish pall (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting. I am waiting for the results. What you have decided all ? Kashish pall (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashish pall: In normal course deletion discussions are open for around a week. They are then reviewed by an independent editor/admin who makes the call on whether there is a policy-based consensus to retain or delete the article. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • salted. Article now salted and need one more look for review. Kashish pall (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. Gritmem (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-SALT Promotional bio and fails WP:GNG per source analysis. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-salt- Promotional WP:BLP that is maintained by what is mostly an WP:SPA. Also agree with Abecedare above about the sourcing. 1292simon (talk)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandeep_Maheshwari&oldid=950117988"