Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navin Chaddha

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Chaddha[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:SIGCOV. WP:BIO. UPE. Coverage is mainly interviews, or his commentary, which isn't significant or indepth. WP:BEFORE finds nothing of significance. Forbes coverage is either 404 or contributors. No secondary coverage scope_creep^Talk 00:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The sources appear to convey notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRed176 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA editor who has made few edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 14:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Examination of the references:

Ref 1 [1] WSJ Routine job annoucement. Primary.

Ref 2 [2] 25 rising stars. X of Y article. NON-RS.

Ref 3 [3] Interview and PR puff piece.

Ref 4 [4] Invitation to the world economic forum as help the needy message. PR.

Ref 6 Company stock plan. Non-RS

Ref 7 [5] Press-release.

Ref 8 [6] Passing mention of the company. Not specific to Chaddha

Ref 9 [7] Forbes Magnetic-40. Early X of Y example. NON-RS.

Ref 10 [8] Press-release

Ref 11 [9] Press-release

Ref 12 [10] Press-release. Change of name.

Ref 13 404

Well, what a sorry list. Of 13 refs 4 are press-release. 3 are non-RS, 1 passing mention, 1 primary, 1 is interview, 1 routine job annoucement and 1 interview. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY on the subject. Certainly verifies he exists. A WP:BEFORE found the exact same. Completely fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure - I'm employed by Mayfield, where Navin is a Managing Director, so I won't edit his article, but I wanted to share some more recent sources that you might not have seen. I plan to post a connected edit request on the talk page so these sources can be added. In addition to all the sources in the article, Navin was ranked number 5 in the 2022 Forbes Midas List. He has also been recently recognized by Business Insider in in-depth profiles as both a top cloud VC and a prominent venture capitalist. This final Business Insider piece discusses his investment philosophy, while also summarizing his career and investment accomplishments. VCEditor2023 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further refs:

Ref 1 [11] X of Y profile list. Non-RS. Its a business profile listing and is not independent.
Ref 2 [12] Another profile. PR.
Ref 3 [13] An interview.
Ref 4 [14] Heres how to pitch him. Another interview. PR

So not a single secondary source, as SPA coi editor has to come and shovel more junk in support this BLP. No significant coverage, even on the BEFORE has been found. Fails WP:SICOV, WP:BIO. What is there is x of y articles, business profiles, interview and PR. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source analysis above (even without a fancy table) explains it well. Nothing to use here for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's also the second "serial entrepreneur" at AfD today after Tino. That's another word combo to watch for here I suppose, as a potential indicator of non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the source analysis. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a BLP page created by a now blocked editor, and prod removed by a different blocked editor. Resembles a case of UPE. The analysis of sources by User:Scope creep above looks right. On the merits, there's nothing approaching direct detailing in significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 00:12, 25 January 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.