Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajat Bhageria (3rd nomination)

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. Callanecc is doing the laundry with the socks. The remaining opinions lean towards deletion, especially considering that the delete camp apparently went more in-depth with the analysis of the sources. So delete it is Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Bhageria[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the startup itself may be notable, none of the sources cited mention the founder in any capacity other than in passing. Suggest protecting page after deleting as this is the third nomination, and if successful, the third deletion. WP:NOTE PureRED (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Added significantly more sources for credibility of the subject Applegeeks (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Applegeeks 21 August 2017~~[reply]

Note from their other contribs, it is highly likely that this user is a sock. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A biography developed by 2 WP:SPA accounts. Judging from the February AfD discussion, the previous instance (by blocked sockpuppet account Mark Banter) appears to have had different references from this version, which avoids material about his self-published book, but its content and references relate almost entirely to a start-up company with which the subject was associated, for which WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I did also find this India West article which has a brief paragraph about the subject, who is among 11 Indian American students to obtain a KPCB Fellowship, but I am not seeng enough to demonstrate WP:ANYBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Improve: As requested by User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU, I added more information, new sections, and more sources for the notability of the subject. I believe that if this article is further imporved, this subject meets notability guidelines. Biker1932 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Biker1932 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Strong delete or speedy delete per G4: No better improvements and no sign of passing WP:ANYBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: This subject should be seen through the lens of WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGDEPTH. The startup in question seems to meet these guidelines based on the multitude of independent third party sources provided about the company. Thus this organization is notable, especially since it was acquired and since the founders were still in college (a very rare proceeding to be sure). According to the articles, the subject seems to have been an important figure in the company and thus WP:NOTINHERITED applies to show notability of the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KindleReader (talk • contribs) — KindleReader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organization-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Snow Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG. The sources include significant coverage (18+ articles) in reliable (like Forbes, Philadelphia Inquirer, Mother Nature Network) third-party secondary sources. All of them seem to be independent of the subject. Thus the subject should be presumed for a standalone article. Additionally, a Google search shows the subject profiled in a variety of publications like Forbes, NBC, TechCrunch, Business Insider, BBC, Philly.com, NewsIndiaTime, HuffPost, Mother Nature Network, and Technical.ly. Some of these are listed as sources on the article. Additionally, the article should not be deleted per WP:G4 since it is substantially different than the previous deleted versions (as mentioned before). GSF 323 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC) — GSF 323 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Neither the fact that the article was created by an apparent SPA account (and a previous version by another such account), nor the fact that completely different articles with the same title were deleted, are reasons to delete this article. There are plenty of WP:RS covering Bhageria now — possibly the previous deletions were merely a case of WP:TOOSOON — and thus no reason not to keep the article. It could certainly stand to be improved, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You don't find it suspicious that immediately after the article was created by a new account, a second new account swooped in to defend its existence and add sources? I realize that doesn't change the notability of the subject, but's it's still bizarre and seems a little sockpuppety considering the history. AND now two of the "Keep" comments have been marked as users who are otherwise virtually inactive.PureRED (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note about socking I have started an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer. SmartSE (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All confirmed so I have struck their !votes. SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not exceeding my boundaries here since I'm new, but I'm not sure why I'm being investigated to be a sockpuppet for BurritoSlayer or Mark Banter. I'm not related to them in any way. The reason I added the sources earlier is because I had just read this forbes article about entrepreneurship by the subject and looked him up on Wikipedia to get more info. I thought he should have a page and so added more sources. I know I'm just a newb at Wikipedia and haven't made too many edits yet (still learning!) but as GrammerFascist has mentioned, the fact that I'm new (or that others are) to this community doesn't change the notability of this subject for this particular article. Maybe in the past he didn't have the notability, but it seeems like now he does. Not sure why it matters if the creator of the article was a SPA? This subject clearly has notable sources and thus it shouldn't matter that the creator is just starting out on Wikipedia. Applegeeks (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Applegeeks: You are not exceeding any boundaries here, and welcome to Wikipedia! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is run of the mill stuff that dorsnt meet the notability guidelines and behaviorally this is a match to the BuritoSlayer sock farm: the accounts here are CU confirmed to one another just not the master because of webhosts. That makes it likely eligible for deletion under G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2017 (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.