Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddharth Shetty

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. Missvain (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Shetty[edit]

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

Don't believe that this person has lasting notability. Has created his own company and then closed it 6 months later. Then he released software that is in private beta, not on sale to the public. Probably WP:TOOSOON Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Why is Siddharth Shetty being considered for deletion?

Comment - This was my first Wikipedia Article Contribution, and I interacted with fellow members of the community all of whom approved and even improved upon it. However, there is one Wikipedia user who has a hidden agenda and keeps adding it for deletion - this is not right.

I am going to undo the deletion, till such time a proper explanation is provided. If you are considering an article for deletion which has already been reviewed by the community, you need to provide a thorough explanation, not me. The points provided by Gbawden are completely false.BBen489 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— BBen489 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of RohansoodH22 (talk · contribs).

Keep - The nomination is clearly good-faith, but I'd say in error; while about half of the article's sources are non-independent of the subject and primary in nature or otherwise non-suitable for verification or notability assessment, at least six of them are acceptable reliable sources which treat the subject in detail. WP:CRYSTAL (which is the principle I assume nom was referencing via WP:TOOSOON essay) does not seem to apply here as notability appears to be established via WP:GNG. Snow talk 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my concern is still lasting notability. Starting his own company at 17/18 gained him some press coverage - but this could be a flash in the pan and perhaps BPL1E - the one event being founding a company at a young age. Gbawden (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability is not temporary. BLP1E (and BIO1E) are generally invoked in cases where GNG has been satisfied but there remains some question of whether or not an independent article is warranted or whether the content should be merged into another location. In this case, I don't see an obvious candidate for merger (though there's a strong chance I'd support such a move if there were). Snow talk 10:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gbawden, the points you raised in your initial reason for deletion seem to have been addressed in the article, and Siddharth Shetty should be kept. Fundlined is no more in Private Beta. According to their website, over 700,000 USD has already been raised using Fundlined. Before Siddharth Shetty closed Fundlined, it was one of India's most successful crowdfunding platform - it was not a flash in the pan event. User:Snow Rise and Gbawden how do we proceed with the closure of this deletion process? Gbawden If you have any further hesitations, feel free to let me know. RohansoodH22 (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Yes, the nomination is made in good-faith. However I do not understand the word "lasting notability" in terms of biographies, I think it only applies into event cases. Notability is not temporary. In present case, subject appears to be meeting WP:GNG standard. Sources, -[1], [2], [3], etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:48, 13 February 2015 (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.