Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratik Gauri (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yandeńo (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 17 November 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pratik Gauri

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pratik Gauri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AfD had four !votes, two of which were socks. Renominating in hopes of more rigorous process. Original deletion rationale was 'Seems to do not meet WP:GNG.'. Girth Summit (blether) 21:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Girth Summit (blether) 21:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Delhi. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (thanks for renominating). The sourcing here appears to be an unholy trinity of interviews, unreliable sources, and sponsored content, none of which moves the needle in terms of the GNG. My search didn't find much else of interest, and no alternatives to deletion come to mind. I'm glad to take a look at any particular sources that people think might be meritorious, but as it stands I'm not convinced Gauri is notable at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was invited to participate in discussion by creator. I stand by my previous opinion about the article, because nothing has been changed. He has significant coverage in national press in Hindi and English.  See below. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The mentioned links only discuss the title of the article significantly, apart from the company. Passes WP:SIGCOV fo General notability guideline. Other lonks, focus on him as the founder of the company. In the awards section of article, several sources are mentioned. This link is not in the article [8] that said Pratik Gauri awarded Creative Entrepreneur Of The Year 2020 - Startup by Entrepreneur India. Based on these reasons, I believe that subject passes WP:GNG.황83보 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of these sources: [9] has no byline, is in large part an interview, and reads like a puff piece ("this Indian influence entrepreneur is making the world a better place and trying to take India places"); [10] lacks a byline, is of uncertain reliability per WP:NPPSG, and is mostly an interview; [11] is almost word-for-word identical to the first source; [12] is of dubious reliability per WP:NPPSG and lacks in-depth non-interview content; [13] has no byline and lacks independent analysis (mostly just quotes from his LinkedIn, items from his résumé, "is already being talked about", etc.); [14] is word-for-word identical to this article about a different person in places, suggesting that both are copied from press releases; [15] is an (odd) interview and or/blog; and [16] contains neither a byline nor independent analysis. None of these sources seem to provide the in-depth and genuinely independent reliable-source coverage that the GNG requires, and indeed many of them read like sponsored content (see Paid news in India). Still not convinced that he's notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually not convinced by the reasons presented by you. sources must be reliable, independent, secondry and signigicantly to be acceptable. I check out these conditions and have nothing to do with being “byline” or not. In some of sources your reason is being interview. As you know, along with independent secondary sources, interviews are also helpful for verifiability and demonstration of notability. Based on the page you introduced ( Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide) which has generally listed reliable sources of English language not national language, I found multiple sources that were mentioned as relaible sources [17] from The Statesman (India), [18] from Mint (newspaper), 3 sources featuring the Best Tech Start-up of the Year in the Blockchain domain award by Entrepreneur Awards 2022 [19] from Business Standard and [20] from ThePrint and [21] from The Financial Express (India), 4 times mentioned as the CEO of company [22] on Mint (newspaper) and 7 times mentioned for same position [23] on The Financial Express (India) , [24] from Business Line and other sources from Business Standard and ect. The sources that I have introduced are acceptable/reliable sources from the websites that have been listed on Wikipedia:NPPSG. Other sources all listed as No consensus, generally are not realible but some of them are and some are not. It should be check out for each link. such as [25] and [26] from The Economic Times, [27] from NDTV and many other sources listed as No consensus in Wikipedia:NPPSG. I did not mentioned any unreliable sources, according to Wikipedia:NPPSG. A you see, we only checked out English sources. whereas, due to his nationality, Hindi sources must be checked that I presented some of reliable of them. Please also review sources provided in last AFD and article that are the indication of WP:SIGCOV. Passes WP:GNG.황83보 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @4meter4: In addition to the sources that are in the article, new sources were mentioned in this Afd and last Afd, but Extraordinary Writ claimed that they do not meet the conditions of RS. Is it possible for you to review the links and leave your comment?황83보 (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, but I am having difficulty evaluating many of the sources due to the language barrier. I am going to sit this one out. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Is it possible for you to review above discussion regarding my vote? I listed English sources.황83보 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pratik_Gauri_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1122438950"