Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit Ugale

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ahsanullah2015 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Ugale[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)

The article is on a non notable businessperson who has mostly received sponsored coverage. Couldn't locate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep the person is notable businessman and is covered by many Indian newspapers and magazines. Many sources are offline, but I am sharing some for Wikipedians reference.

i. Young boy has started a company which has made more than 30 software, published in Punyanagri (Marathi) on 13 May 2019 (Scanned copy link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/11sjkzeOIRlskq3-kYcyxSQt83pG5W-FY/view)

ii. Farmer's son has launched home security app, editor: Amol Yadav, published on 20 June 2020 (Scanned copy link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-SU9zHtg826Z4b4U8MGC_vgAvXM6yuIn/view)

iii. Software company's turnover now over 1 CR annually, writer: Vilas Patil, published on 6 May 2019 in Deshdoot (Scanned copy link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_7BUl5GPMs1w31MWdijvijrY80vdlwQs/view)

Looking forward to positive comments from Wikipedians. 182.70.36.210 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP all. Offline sources are obvious examples. Gondulfo Cortesi (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gondulfo Cortesi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep. The person is a notable businessman and is regularly featured in Hindi-language. Upon searching in Hindi sources I stumbled upon this source. Easily passes WP:GNG. 122.162.179.48 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sufficiently happy with the "keep" comments so far, more discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources cited in the article itself alone, but even further clinched by those additional sourced linked to in this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are either paid partnerships or unreliable. I don't think a few hundred words in a non-national newspaper count demonstrate notability. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4. I've tidy-up the article. We have to find Hindi/Gujarati-speaking person before we decide offline sources are reliable/or-not. 2A00:23C8:2218:CE01:86EA:97FF:FE95:C39A (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Berrely. This one seems have an extensive promotional coverage and the article is entirely sourced through paid promotions, including in unreliable source. For instance, take a look at this article in The Hindustan Times or this article in the Business Standard both of which are marked as sponsored posts and the content of these are replicated in the references within the article which unlike them hasn't disclosed that it's paid promotion. I don't see anything in reliable sources on the subject which aren't marked as sponsored posts. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "offline sources", all three are articles in Marathi newspapers. Pretty much every major Marathi newspaper has a website and any recent article would be available online. The pictures don't provide any information about which newspaper it has been published in, on what date and in what section of the paper. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree with Tayi Arajakate. The article creator hasn't attached Hindustan Times and Business Standard with Wikipedia article as they're definitely paid. 4meter4 has summarized the situation well and I agree with them offline sources (major Marathi newspapers such as Punyanagri and Deshdoot) alone are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. We just have to assume good faith WP:AGF. 51.154.28.70 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, no. Those article are a word to word match with this article from Zee News which is used as a citation, in general it is not a reliable source. Further affirmed by the fact that it hasn't disclosed the paid promotion. Other than it, there are two obscure sites called News Track and APN News, their content similarly matches an article posted on The Statesman's inspiration hub section which is dedicated to user generated and other sponsored content. Note that the inspiration hub section is on the blacklist which is why I assume these two sites had to be used.
  Punyanagari and Deshdoot are local newspapers, even among Marathi newspapers. Not to mention both of them do have websites where those articles should be available, so why not link them here? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the link to Newspaper PunyaNagri , Date 13 May 2019, Author - Amol Yadav (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RzR780Dt5Adcb-sDxCWyMtWaZMD7UVv4/view). 2405:201:AC01:91B1:E8A9:EA37:30DB:4639 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 1 July 2021 (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.