Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dev Duggal

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 Sachin Dev Duggal. No consensus on Nivio, default to keep. Jujutacular (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Dev Duggal[edit]

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

I was working on Amazon's mturk.com and noticed some type of SEO firm was keeping tabs on this page. Starter of article was "niviocloud," the same company this guy owns, so it appears to have been done by a pretty crafty publicity firm that knows how to use citations, images, and section headers on here to make their people look legit. Anyways, the person doesn't appear to be notable so much as a classic Internet self-promoter, and whatever companies he's affiliated with still appear to be in a seed or early stage. Possibly violates WP:NN and WP:CRYSTAL, but I want to hear what others think. Also nominating the following related page for the same reason: Nivio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Jd027 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Edit: This article has a speedy deletion history - see User talk:Abatra Jd027 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one yes, these are both highly promotional. That alone is not grounds for deletion, so perhaps there could be some kind of merge into a single notable article. This one has at least attempted to make him look notable, but the promotional language is just too over-the-top, and many of the sources are just promotional web sites. I can take a look to see if the company article can be saved....

Follow-up: I spent (too much) time on the nivio company article and think it can be justified. It seems Duggal is "no longer with them", and continues to get some press, so is probably the more notable. Duggal sure is good self-promoter. For example, the product was listed in the WEF award of 2009, but over time Duggal claimed it was his personally. A lot of other assertions seem "optimistic" to say the least: announcing effectively the same product in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Looking a bit at the history of these two, there have been a couple minor edit wars of people adding allegations about the company shutting down offices or laying off employees, but these are hard to verify, and were quickly reverted. One perhaps related source is http://ibnlive.in.com/news/excms-dirty-money-trail-punjab-to-switzerland/43046-3.html which alleges some tenuous connection to a scandal. But not sure that is a reliable enough source, and the connection is only touched upon. But after extensive rework to English instead of marketingspeak, I vote to keep the company article and delete the personal promotional one. Although perhaps not deep, the press is quite wide, since the nivio company appears to be spread all over the earth: Switzerland, UK, US, and Australia to some extent. W Nowicki (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes another note: it appears that the photo at File:Sachin Dev Duggal @ the World Economic Forum 2010.jpg was really taken in 2009, since it duplicates File:NivioCEOSachinDuggal.JPG which was uploaded in 2009, which agrees with the EXIF data. So that photo should be deleted too (alas, on Commons). Anyone know how to do that? W Nowicki (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really appreciate your heavy-hitting. I still have to respectfully disagree with your judgment on Nivio and advocate to delete both articles. WP:CORP requires substantial coverage of the source. Within the first three pages of Google, for what it's worth, on "nivio," I find mostly promotional materials, unrelated subjects, and very similar articles on the same two topics only - recent ones about receiving venture capital funding (WP:CRYSTAL) (supports the notion that it's still in a very early stage) and about bringing some sort of cloud service to the iPad and other devices. Although I realize that "depth of coverage" is a very subjective term, in my personal application of the term, I would expect a company with deep coverage to have multiple articles delineating its context or niche within the industry, multiple innovations and development through time, its financials, and its significant current standing within the wider business world. I just don't see that with this company; I fear we are left with mostly self-promotion. Jd027 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sounds like we need at least a third opinion on if the company article is now only promotional. Can we delete the vanity article on its founder in the meanwhile? I did yet another pass on it to distinguish between a company saying something will happen, vs. the article making an assertion about the future, which clearly would be Crystal. The coverage includes several by professional journalists, not just bloggers. I also tried to avoid the usual blind repetitions of press releases. Clearly articles about historic companies that have no current standing whatsoever are quite common, and we need more of them in my opinion, to counteract recentism. The company has been around nine years, which in the Internet world seems long-lived (?!?). At least I find it very useful to have these narratives of companies that keep announcing things and getting money, and doing it again and again. Clearly doing it once is too common! There is no guideline (nor should there be) that says articles must be deleted on subjects that are good at self-promotion, which is all that a quick Google search turns up. If that were true, we would not have many on politicians. :-) W Nowicki (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but tag for improvement -- This has the feel of autobiography, effectiely ADVERT. There are elements of CRYSTAL in it, but I suspect that the multiple awards suggest that the subject is significant, not merely a good self-publicist. I thus take the view that the article is saveable, but it needs a lot of work. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So which of the two articles is the above comment talking about (or both)? At a minimum, the rules on bios of living persons says all uncited claims can be removed without debate in the Sachin Dev Duggal one. If it is going to stick, then it might be worth the effort. I still think the personal article should just go, since most of the sources are self claims. The WEF award for example was the company, not the person (and five years later the product is still not out?). Other "awards" are sourced to his own press releases or speaker blurbs, and are quite dubious. Even the patents which I cited in the nivio article, seem to be granted in 2012 for techniques that I used as a student in the 1980s, which were not really novel back then (available in literature since the 1970s). That is why I still favor a compromise of keeping the company article with at least some independent sources and more balanced language. Or maybe split these two discussions to clarify which article gets the axe. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't want to get too involved but just scanning through the edit history I see some serious WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION issues. Per this comment the subject's IP address is 67.180.32.177; that address has groomed this article extensively. In addition, as already pointed out by Abatra, the bulk of the content was at creation by User:Niviocloud, an WP:SPA whose username also suggests a COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope someone else does get involved please so we can break the impasse. Still think the bio should go but keep the company since it is still around, but of course can wait for consensus, if any. I got tired of all that uncited promotion sitting around so reduced the personal vanity article down to a neutral statement of facts verified from the sources, as per Bio of Living Person guidelines. The other observation is that the claim about a foundation is probably not very meaningful. Private stock by definition is not very liquid until the company goes public or is acquired. I could not get the foundation web site to work for me, so no idea how legit it is. W Nowicki (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per G11 (promotion). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2013 (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.