Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujjwal Chaurasia

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjwal Chaurasia

[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)

Fails Wikipedias general notability guidelines. Sources are not reliable. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Delhi. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only gossip nd PR stuff Worldiswide (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Review of the sources shows that they all read as if they have a common ancestor, which is probably a handout from the company to the media telling e story about its founder. The question that we have is not whether the story is true, which it probably is (although probably exaggerated). It is whether the postings of the story are significant coverage by independent sources They are not.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	dnaindia.com	An interview with the subject	No	Yes	?	No
2	www.socialketchup.in	An interview with the subject	No	Yes	?	No
3	www.iwmbuzz.com	Reads like a rework of a press release	No	Yes	?	No
4	failurebeforesuccess.com	Reads like another reworked press release of his bio	No	Yes	?	No
5	www.india.com/technology	Another recycling of the press release	No	Yes	?	No
6	www.news18.com	And another recycling of the press release	No	Yes	?	No

There is also a draft, by a different editor. I have not reviewed the draft, and do not know whether it establishes notability. But draftification is not an alternative to deletion. This article should be deleted, and the draft left alone by this MFD, but I will probably review it separately. One interesting comment is that he has made himself a playable character in a video game. That has no effect of his notability.

This article contains peacock language which should be trimmed if the article is kept. It reads like it was written by a paid editor. It was probably either written by a paid editor, or by an ultra who writes like a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techno Gamerz, which illustrates the gaming of titles. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable and sponsored sources. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 17:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reliable source

Sheikh, Ramij Raja (2023). Life of Popular Indian YouTubers. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-851-45989-4.

Pandey, Manish; Pamnani, Harsh (2021). Booming Digital Stars. Pencil Select. ISBN 978-9-354-58955-3. Arumobileworld (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He fails to step over the notability hurdle. WP:BIO fail. Also per reference analysis. None good 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a request to re-examine left on my talk page, I have. I see nothing that alters my opinion in any of the new referencing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A request has also been left on my talk page to re-review the article because reliable sources are said to have been added. Reliable sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition for accepting or keeping an article. The article still does not speak for itself. I may or may not examine the three additional sources. Is the proponent a paid editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sir. I'm not paid editor. I just creating articles about notable peoples. I created this article because of he is Top Indian Gamer. After the nomination of AfD I searched for good reference such as The CEO Magazine published Indian top YouTube creators of 2020 and I found some reliable sources so I added to article. Arumobileworld (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see the prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techno Gamerz 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Authors like "News9 Technology Desk" and "FE Lifestyle" speak Churnalism to me, but I don't have the time to sift through the debris to make a proper !vote. casualdejekyll 18:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All references appear to be either trivial mentions or affiliated with the subject. As an aside, this article also has egregious WP:NPOV issues. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 11:46, 13 September 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.