Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sopnendu Mohanty

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yogesh Khandke (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 28 June 2022 (→‎Sopnendu Mohanty: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sopnendu Mohanty

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

Sopnendu Mohanty (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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions, profiles, and routine run-of-the-mill coverage of IT professional. scope_creepTalk 15:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How a person who serves as advisor on fintech related issues for the National University of Singapore, International Monetary Fund, Mojaloop Foundation and the Indian State Government of Odisha can be considered with a routine (run-of-the-mill coverage of) IT professional?Eesan1969 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 when many of the sources in the article are tangential to him as a person; lacking in depth coverage of him; are press releases; or unreliable (i.e. WP:FORBESCON). – robertsky (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky, a few might be press releases but many are reputed international media.Eesan1969 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 but not of in depth coverage of him, not of the organisations or the events. – robertsky (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969: When I looked at the first block of 8 references there was nothing there, nothing that was signifcant, independent and in-depth. Then I did a WP:BEFORE search on the man. It was a similar kind of stuff. We can go through the references if you want at some point. scope_creepTalk 16:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But when I search under the following categories, still he looks to me notable.
Books, Scholar, WP refs (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).Eesan1969 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the Closing Admin
There are a number of petitions[1], [2] against this subject, that can't influence to judge his notability.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eesan1969 this would not have been, and should not be a factor anyway in the deletion discussion. – robertsky (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the AfC acceptance, it is a prediction of whether the article can survive a AfD discussion. It is not a shield from AfD. – robertsky (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this article was accepted on September 4, 2021 only by a neutral editor @Félix An: at AfC.....why in a hurry for deletion?Eesan1969 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush to delete the article at its present state. You have one to two weeks to improve the article. As it stands, there are issues, i.e. reference sourcing, which some here feel warrant a deletion. If you can resolve those issues, what we raise here is moot. – robertsky (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't dictate by your own time line of one or two weeks.Eesan1969 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks is the general run-time of a discussion on wikipedia, hence two weeks. – robertsky (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide here the source for your statement.Eesan1969 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should correct myself, 7 days if a rough consensus has been established within that time. See WP:WHENCLOSE. But I do see discussions stretching to 2 weeks or more as well. – robertsky (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, if this person could have its own Wikipedia article, then so does my IT colleague that I know personally. Most sources in the article are not even focused on the person, lacking significant coverage, but merely a passing mention. 175.116.2.149 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This 'Vote' is the only contribution of this IP Address.Eesan1969 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Above IP Address[3] and the Nominator[4] identify the subject as IT Professional, but he is a Fintech Professional; the lead para of the fintech page will give clear distinction between the two areas. This shows they haven't done enough research but deep stake to delete the page.Eesan1969 (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eesan1969 Fintech is an application of IT on the financial industry, as evidently noted in the article you have linked. Calling the subject an IT professional is fair. I suggest laying off in casting asperasions of other editors, and assume good faith. It can be construed as making personal attacks on other editors. – robertsky (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a Fintech Professional(not based in Singapore or India or not a nationality of these countries) and given speeches in major cities of Asia. It's incorrect relating merely Fintech is an application of IT on the financial industry.
Fintech is the technology and innovation that aims to compete with traditional financial methods in the delivery of financial services. Artificial intelligence, Blockchain, Cloud computing, and big Data are regarded as the "ABCD" (four key areas) of FinTech. The Fintech industry is an emerging industry that uses technology to improve activities in finance. The use of smartphones for mobile banking, investing, borrowing services, and cryptocurrency are examples of technologies aiming to make financial services more accessible to the general public......
And Fintech plays an important role when it comes to Singapore, a major financial hub in the world which is currently transforming it towards a fintech hub.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Went through all 23 sources, no significant coverage about Mohanty. Coverage is mainly about MAS, Fintech industry and appointments to various board. While he may be notable, there are no significant coverage about him. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justanothersgwikieditor: Agree with your point, "...While he may be notable, there are no significant coverage about him." That's why I am not agreeing this AfD.Eesan1969 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. John Yunshire (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A run-of-the-mill IT worker that you could come across thousands of them on LinkedIn is hardly notable. Tjczzo (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Tjczzo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and become active after 9 months after this AfD nomination initiated.Eesan1969 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. Subject has received coverage in the Financial Times ,Strait times amongst others and mentioned by the IMF here Scrapes through GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say about Financial Times as I am not subscribed to it. As for the Straits Times article it is him as a spokeperson for MAS. The topic is primarily related to MAS and its stance on cryptocurrency. There is no in depth coverage about him. As for the IMF speech, it is a passing mention that he attended the event. – robertsky (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertsky: I just checked the Financial Times article, and it's mostly quotes from Mohanty. There are three sentences that are not quotes, and all of them describe what he is saying.
    The only details that the article gives about Mohanty are Sopnendu Mohanty, chief fintech officer at the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the country’s central bank, questioned [...] and Mohanty was speaking as South Korean prosecutors narrowed in on Singapore-based Terraform Labs, the company behind the collapsed stablecoin terraUSD and its twin token luna. Not significant coverage. — MarkH21talk 05:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not the topic of these articles as per WP:SIGCOV. It needs to be independent of the subject, and these counts as press releases. John Yunshire (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Especially at current stage. Current article can be replaced by a Resonator-generator page on via Wikidata additions. In addition, in terms of people at MAS, the current MD has no page. Xenmorpha (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current MD doesn't have a page can't be an excuse for, why this subject can't have a page. I really created a user page for him in 2020, but I couldn't find enough details about him, in fact, I met him in person couple of years back.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with a lot to spare. I recommend editors go through the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, complete a few online searches in news sources, and recognize the volume of coverage of hte individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Went through BEFORE. plenty of low quality press releases, spokesperson, etc. little to none sigcov. – robertsky (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I currently have no particularly strong feelings either way, but I do not have enough WP:TROUTs to distribute for the current state of this AfD. Throwing aspersions of failure to do BEFORE, rushing off to ANI etc. really doesn't help. The main problem is that this sort of career generates large amounts of low-quality sourcing: deliberate press-releases, mirrors of press-releases, material from organisations who are employing him, and those advertising events at which he speaks, all of which cannot be used to write an article about him. Low quality sources don't mean he's not notable, but it's very hard to sift through this lot and find something where someone writes about him independently, and in depth. For those who would keep, the best strategy would be to point out three really good such sources; nothing more is needed, and the honest deleter will happily change their opinion when faced with good sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald:, @Elemimele:, reference to BEFORE and “...three really good such sources...”;
Sopnendu Mohanty appointed digital and financial technology advisor to Odisha govt in the The Times of India, the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world.
Odisha Govt Appoints Fintech Thought Leader Sopnendu Mohanty As Digital And Financial Technology Advisor in the Kalinga TV, an Odia language 24-hour cable and satellite news channel in Odisha, India.
Reference to WP:BEFORE B. Carry out these checks 7. (...search for native-language sources if the subject...), the above news item might have well covered in the Odia language news papers, but couldn’t access by Google search.
And all above makes him notable in India especially in Odisha which has a population of nearly 42 million.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as he just ain't passing the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A few comments. (a) As an AfC reviewer we rate based on what we think community consensus is but it is not unusual for something that has been accepted to be sent to AfD which is perfectly acceptable and not an argument for the article to be kept. (b) With FinTech just like with crypto there can be a lot of hype which makes reference analysis important. (c) I note that the MAS Wikipedia page and the linked pages do not appear to mention the FITG or this individual which does not help the keep case. (i.e. if the position is important then it should be mentioned) (d) Perhaps a merge to one of those pages could be an alternative (e) I definitely agree about the need for some serious trouting. (f) Unless you are working off something in WP:BIO or one of the subject related guides then saying/agreeing there is no significant coverage appears to be incompatible with a vote of keep and may indicate that an article is WP:TOOSOON. Gusfriend (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC) 23:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend: I think you have missed some details;
MAS page mention the FITG here and this individual here(under 'Markets & Development' --> 'Fintech & Innovation').
And MAS has created in August 2021 Elevandi to advance FinTech in the digital economy and engage with global FinTech community.... he is the Chairman of Elevandi.
And he is the Co-Chair of Steering Committee at the 'Asian Institute of Digital Finance' which is jointly created by MAS, National University of Singapore(NUS) and National Research Foundation attached to the Prime Minister's Office, Singapore.Eesan1969 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was talking about the Wikipedia pages not their web sites. I have adjusted my comment to clarify. Gusfriend (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with major reservations: Mohanty apparently conceptualised and organised the Singapore FinTech Festival - the world's largest FinTech festival and a global platform for the FinTech community[5]. That is a big deal, worth recognising. My major reservations are that of the 23 sources (mostly media releases of uncertain reliability), just two have anything interesting to say about him. User:Eesan1969, you refer to sources in books and scholar but cite none of these. There is an interview with the subject here, yet this is not cited. Sandbh (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary and don't prove notability and organising a festival or a conference is not a big deal. That is crux of it, there is no real secondary sourcing on this article. scope_creepTalk 08:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Thanks for advise citing the books. Regarding Singapore FinTech Festival, I have mentioned at ANI.Eesan1969 (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Specific examples of in-depth coverage of the actual person in independent (i.e. not interviews) reliable sources have not been provided by editors here, and I cannot find them either. Vague waves at GNG, pointing at interviews (e.g. the PGurus article), and pointing at articles that do not discuss the person substantially (e.g. the Straits Times article and (borderline) the Financial Times article) are insufficient. This does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor any of the specialized guidelines. — MarkH21talk 05:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sopnendu_Mohanty&oldid=1095426632"