Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit Aggarwala

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. Ignoring the nom which was blocked, Bearcat's careful analysis carries the day. Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Aggarwala[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)

I don't see sufficient evidence of notability. He is a mid-level employees of a company, he was a mid-level government official and the page only has 2ish examples where he is cited in independent secondary media, and even those cites seem skimpy. Bene.Nota (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see WP:BEFORE for the basic due diligence before an AfD. Here is a 2,500 word profile of Aggarwala. StreetsBlog NYC has a four-part interview totaling 4600 words. Another interview running 3,900 words. There are dozens of stories about a variety of events and topics that report Aggarwala playing a significant role. So the subject has received coverage in multiple independent sources where he is the primary subject, and has played a prominent role in several events and issues spaning a long period of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you, but I still respectfully suggest Delete regarding the particular sources mentioned above my concerns are:

::: The profile is from 12 years ago, from the The New York Sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Sun) which was only published from 2002 to 2008 (an online version has been published sporadically ever since) and was chronically underfunded and I am not clear The New York Sun meets WP:RS, in particular "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable ..."

The other two sources cited above are interviews. WP:IV makes the point that interviews should be thought of as primary sources not to be used for notability, though with caveats (though IMO being interviewed in a major publication The New York Times, WSJ, etc would be more likely to be notable). Regarding the two interviews you mentioned they were both in minor/niche/blog like publications, and for both of them I think their are legitimate concerns (again) re WP:RS and WP:IS

In summary, yes the guy talks at a lot of conferences, he has occasional coverage in second/third tier sources which probably don't meet standards for Reliability and Independence. But, basically he seems to be a mid-level person who is not inherently notable. Unless someone can point to significant coverage in something like NY Times, WSJ, CNN, etc (i.e., something that is unambiguously reliable) I don't think he meet WP:Notability Bene.Nota (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Interviews is just some guy's opinions. It has no standing as a guideline, let alone policy. A self-published blog is a primary source. An interview by a reliable, professional third party is not. A serious, edited publication does not simply hand over a platform for any self-promoting person, as if it were a Livejournal or Facebook page. You don't get lengthy interviews in professional media for the asking or for pay. They choose to devote space to subjects that are notable. The quantity of space a publication gives to an interview subject is evidence of their notability. Interviews of Bill Clinton in major publications are significantly longer than Q&A with a local ice cream stand operator. Whoever wrote that essay doesn't seem to understand the difference between social media and a professional journalist interviewing a notable subject.

I know some editors would like to elevate the opinions in that essay on interviews to the level of a guideline, but they have failed to do so because consensus doesn't support it. At such time as consensus supports discounting interviews for notability, we will say so in the notability guidelines, or the reliable sources guidelines.

Your claims that the New York Sun isn't a reliable have no basis. Who cares if it was published in print from 2002 to 2008, and then online from 2009? It's an arbitrary complaint. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interviews are not completely inadmissible as Wikipedia sourcing — they can absolutely be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts in an article that already has a strong WP:GNG-passing mix of other sources besides the interviews — but they are not in and of themselves notability-clinching sources if they are the best sources on offer, because people do not get to talk themselves into Wikipedia if they have virtually no third-party journalism being written about them in the third-person by other people. And yes, BeneNota is also correct that in order to count as support for notability, one of the things a media outlet has to have is an established reputation as a reliable and trustworthy source — and another thing it has to have is a named masthead of its editorial chain of command, which is something I'm simply not finding on the New York Sun website at all. Web media startups are not always accorded equal value as reliable sources — coverage in a little-known community hyperlocal does not count for nearly as much as coverage in a major general-market daily like The New York Times would. So the interviews and the New York Sun would be fine as additional sources if the rest of the sourcing around them were better than it is, but they don't make him notable all by themselves if they are the best sources on offer. And everything else here is either a primary source that does not count as support for notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of something or someone else — which means that none of this is good enough. GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep everything and everyone that meets or exceeds two media hits": it also tests for the depth, range, quality and context of the coverage, not just the raw number of footnotes present, so Q&A interviews and small community hyperlocals are not enough in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - the article has been nominated, and had large parts of the text removed, by now confirmed sockpuppets of the same user, about whom conflicts of interest with Steven Strauss had previously been raised and about which there are ongoing issues. Firstly, we should resolve those issues, and before evidence is deleted by removing the article. Avaya1 (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPROF. As for GNG, there are some low-key interviews but that's pretty borderline, and they are in very niche outlets. Nothing else, coverage wise or just plain WP:NBIO wise, suggest he on the right side of borderline. And the entry still reads and looks like a low quality paid-for WP:VANITY like bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 26 April 2019 (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.