Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadelin de Ponteves

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. The concerns about the references being promotional material have not been convincingly addressed. Sandstein 22:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hadelin de Ponteves[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)

non-notable business person sourced to press releases and blackhat seo (ie. Statesman inspo hub, asianet newsables, etc...) no real meaningful in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes the WP:GNG as sources provide significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in no way look like Press release articles to me and address the person directly and in detail.-Iqra S. Shaikh (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except they are literally press releases or paid for black hat seo and those that aren't are WP:UGEN like this. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admit that odsc and codementor appear to be self published sources but were used only to support the content in the article. I have removed those references from the page. As far as other sources are concerned, they are mainstream newspapers in India (CCN News 18 being one of the top 5 News channel in India) and are considered as secondary, reliable sources covering the subject in detail. They are definitely not press releases, neither did they look like paid articles to me as I have seen many articles on Wikipedia being cited to these same sources and they all have been written in the same manner.Iqra S. Shaikh (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News18 is one of the top offenders of churnalism, so no. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While reliability of certain sources is questionable i would lean towards a weak keep as enough coverage here to satisfy SIGCOV. According to cited sources, a Google employee having developed an online course which is being used by over 1.6 million.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing what sources exactly you believe to satisfy SIGCOV? Press releases and self published crap don't satisfy that. 1.6 million people is a drop in the bucket. We don't use view count or instagram followers for notability, why would we use it for this? Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can it be improved? Seems like an odd collection of citations unrelated to his being notable in the field of AI or his Google course. If there are reliable citations available supporting the coursework or his contributions in AI I think it would help.10Sany1? (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per WP:GNG.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three remaining sources, they are all press releases. How exactly does that make him notable? Praxidicae (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is from Newsable, not actually Asianetnews. Praxidicae (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asianetnews is a Malayalam language news channel, English version of which is Asianet Newsable. See this It is a popular news channel in India and considered as WP:Reliable Sources.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even reliable sources publish press releases, or in this case, regurgitated press releases which is evident by the poorly written content, puffy language and lack of an author. If I were to remove all the press releases from this article, we'd have 0 sources to discuss, so that says more than the baseless keep votes here. It also begs the question as to why all the sources are Indian media, and yet no French sources or other major media outlets are covering this person...Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as purely promotional with no real claim of notability. Guy wrote book and founded company is not the basis for an encyclopaedia entry. Mccapra (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional fluff, as Mccapra and Praxidicae pointed out. XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Praxidicae, why are you removing the Statesman article from the page while I disgree with your arguements and the discussion is still open? If it was a press release article, there would have been some sort of evidence. Since there is no disclaimer or any indication in the article, i don't really think it is a press release. As i mentioned before, there are hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that have been cited to these references and have been written in the same manner, so are you claiming they are all paid or press release articles?-Iqra S. Shaikh (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2020 (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.