Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Bhadana

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. Sandstein 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Bhadana[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)

~~Fails WP:GNG since the subject is non-notable, and has no proper coverage from independent sources. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has bee n included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has 9 million subscribers and 500 million views so is one of the very most popular YouTube personalities in India, also searches show press coverage passing WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, provide them.And, likes/subscribers does not contribute an iota to wiki-notability.∯WBG^converse 08:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft - even though Bhadana is a known personality, the Reference list on the page leads to his own site and general blogs, except for the publication by Hindustan Times. The page says he won a "National Academy Award" - couldn't find any source to verify this except for a Tweet by Bhadana holding 2 awards. The person is popular but not notable as per Wikipedia terms. I vote to move the page to Drafts where it can be worked up at a later date. Csgir (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just confirm two things: He claimed to "won" an unverifiable award. His tweet is not reliable here, this is clear.
You agree he *doesn't meet notability guidelines*. Please see this. It's meaningless moving non notable article to draft, otherwise AfD should fold up and any non notable article just be moved to draft.
This is simple issue. Does he have multiple, independent coverage from reliable sources?; if yes, bring them here, if no, then he's not better than all other deleted articles and should be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity I agree with Csgir. Being a "known" personality isn't encyclopedic, in depth coverage is. If searches show coverage, please provide them. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Ammarpad already stated above, There is no indication that this person will become notable in the near future, in such a case, Dratify is not justified. this subject has to be judged on notability and either deleted or kept. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Nothing resemblant to SIGCOV other than this promotional tabloid-journalism.Mere name-mentions are located.∯WBG^converse 08:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have been watching this article for sometime but fail to understand how it's encyclopedic. Lacks SIGCOV from reliable sources and fails GNG completely. Entirely promotional stuff built upon total unreliable sources such as this fan's blog and back reference to Youtube and his own self promotion blog. For those saying move to draft, it was once moved but immediately moved back to mainspace as is to be expected from generally non notable promotional stuffs. So moving it is worthless. If it's notable, just shows us multiple independent RS discussing him directly and in detail. If no such sources exist then it's meaningless moving it to draft.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think that SocialBlade is an entirely fan made website but is not completely acceptable. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I had withdrawn the nomination and therefore as it has been reverted, would vote keep. The subject is surely a notable ones with millions of subscribers. Passes GNG. My initial nomination was a mistake, since I had not done WP:BEFORE - Knightrises10 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure this should have been reopened as there were no delete votes except draftify votes and a keep vote so it is a bit of a grey area. One of Indias most popular youtubers and there is nothing wrong with the Hindustan Times article which is significant coverage in a reliable source and is not a press release as his YouTube channel is his own and not affiliated to a TV channel or other media enterprise so sticking with my earlier keep vote, but at wost draftify, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, page views of this article average circa. 1000 a day so he is obviously high profile Atlantic306 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having so many subscribers does not of itself make notability. Only one ref talks about the subject and that appears to be an interview. The rest are statistical reports which provide facts but are not independent. This fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some more sources to the article. Also, he has been mentioned by the Indian actor Varun Dhawan, which surely shows he is a very notable and well known Youtuber in India. Knightrises10 talk 18:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So just because he "mentioned" his name, then that made him automatically notable? How you arrived at this conclusion is is beyond me. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: Calm down. Haven't you ever read WP:CIVIL? :-) Xfds are for discussing politely and reaching a consensus, not being rude to those who don't agree with you :-) Knightrises10 talk 14:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not irked at the slightest and my comment doesn't show so either. Probably you have not understand what I said, else how my comment is uncivil? please explain. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knightrises10 Telling someone to be WP:CIVIL and alleging them of incivility When all they ask is a perfectly civil question, is actually an UNCIVIL behavior, and you should apologize and strike off this allegation. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly lack of WP:SIGCOV for dedicating a stand alone article. Capitals00 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and subscribers count is not relevant much. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject does not have a WP:SIGCOV required for a WP:BIO also fails WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more Hindi sources and will like others to take a look :-) I think even WP:BEFORE is enough to confirm the notability of this Youtuber. Knightrises10 talk 18:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knightrises10, I have reviewed all the hindi language sources, Passing mentions and one para introduction does not count as WP:SIGCOV --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is not a passing mention. Same goes for one of the other two Hindi language sources. Knightrises10 talk 19:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

haribhoomi.com is not a WP:RS by any stretch of imagination. You should in fact explain what exactly caused the sudden and surprising change of your heart, I am curious to see which source did that for you, that may help this discussion. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise the talentindia and socialblade.com fan blogs. They're anything but reliable. Better read WP:AMOUNT and stop unfruitful attempt of creating what isn't there. –Ammarpad (talk)

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and also WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft I think this personality has some popularity and this article must be kept for improving this encyclopaedia. But, I think that the present article for this personality doesn't support the ideas of Wikipedia's Policy of Style of Writing and has some kind of promotional content.Aggarwala2727 (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aggarwala2727 if you believe this article is notable, please provide sources or facts, that led you to believe that. At AfD we judge the WP:NOTABILITY of the article based on WP:RS, the Notability, is not established. We cannot assume that once it is moved to draft , in WP:FUTURE the subject will gain some notability and then he can be moved into the mainspace. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:15, 12 October 2018 (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.