Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Arora (cyclist)

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. Good comments, good discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Arora (cyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable, freelance journalist on leave of absence, push-biking around India in pursuit of a Guinness World Records-entry. We don't get to know a whole lot more about him, and searches for sources are obstructed by false positives about his namesake, the TV actor Ankit Arora. The article was deprodded, and two more sentences about the bicycle journey have been added. It is still a WP:BLP1E case that fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically, a good news story for the last item on the news programme. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Record attempt tied to a social cause garnering temporary, feel-good, local-media attention does not make the subject notable by wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Worth noting that the current record holder in the Longest journey by bicycle in a single country category received comparable media attention, but (rightly) does not have a wikipedia article. He is not even mentioned in any of the sources for the Ankit Arora article, illustrating how fleeting the coverage of such feats often is. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Several reliable news outlets have covered the subject, as evidenced by The New Indian Express, The Hindu and Mathrubhumi. The subject is pursuing his second record, thus WP:BLP1E does not apply. Article passes WP:GNG and WP:Bio. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC) AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, none of the sources covers subject, witch is the person Ankit Arora. They cover the story that he's biking around India, and it is a good example of what we do not write about on Wikipedia because WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". As a person, Arora has had no WP:IMPACT. Sam Sailor 08:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least two articles go far more in depth than just the bicycle trips. One is a full-length feature story about him. Stating differently, with all due respect, does not make it so. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV, consistentancy and indepth coverage is established—The New Indian Express, The Hindu and Mathrubhumi. Few more local newspaper has coverage and are still covering. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
• Keep Abundant in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. RS will allow improvement of the article as the subject has passed WP:GNG Lorstaking (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now per below. Lorstaking (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLP1E is not relevant as subject was covered by reliable sources at different times and coverage is significant detailed. [1][2] Raymond3023 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – As user Abecedare has already more or less made the points which I wanted to make, I will focus on the keep !votes. The keep !votes of the page creator and others are based on the three sources – TH, NIE, & Mathrubhumi. So, let's have a look at them:

a) TH: This is more or less an interview of the subject, although it has a few independent bits. Here are the encyclopedic bits from it:

"Cyclist traveller Ankit Arora is aiming for a Guinness world record for the longest journey on a bicycle within a single country."...."He aims to complete 21,000 by the end of the expedition."...."In 2016, Arora entered India Book of records for a 69-hour continuous cycling trip covering 702 Kms on the golden triangle."...."During the course of his journey, Arora is simultaneously video documenting the state of Government schools across India."

b) NIE: Like the previous source, this one is also mostly an interview, which is filled with chit-chat. Here's the only relevant bit from the article:

"For Ankit Arora from Jaipur, cycling had never been more than just an activity until two and a half years back." Other relevant bits are just the repeat of the previous source.

c) Mathrubhumi: This is a short article from a local newspaper of Kerala, which mentions that Arora has arrived in Alappuzha, and that he intends to make the aforementioned record. It also mentions that Round Table India is supporting him. And that's it.

So these sources hardly provide around five relevant lines, which obviously aren't sufficient for WP:GNG. Actually, the coverage is so meagre & trivial that the subject isn't even meeting WP:BLP1E. And I am unable to find the "significant" and "abundant in-depth coverage", as claimed by the keep !voters.

Finally, AfDs aren't a !vote count, and I am yet to see one good reason to keep this BLP. Had the subject actually made any notable record, we could've merged/redirected it somewhere, but even that's not the case here. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the encyclopedic bits are enough for the subject to prove notability. This bits passes the article with WP:GNG Accesscrawl (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, GNG requires chunks, not bits. We cannot create a standalone article when the independent coverage is hardly equivalent to around five lines. BTW, here's the relevant quote from WP:GNG:If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails GNG/BASIC. This is a typical case of WP:NOTNEWS. My independent searches couldn't find in-depth sources, and the sources provided by keep !voters hardly scratch the surface, as explained by my previous comments. Everything else is already explained by the nom & other delete !voters. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These are just trivial mentions, and the keep voters seem to be dazzled by WP:OOHLOOKSOURCES! 0+0+0=0. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Respond Sources look pretty strong. If this doesn't passes WP:GNG what else does? It is getting regular coverage in independent sources. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E - its feelgood clickbait about a not notable journalist taking what appears to be a working holiday. Curdle (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Trying for a world record does not equate to notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article cites only one independent source, and it tells us very little about the person, not the "in-depth discussion" that is required. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. 49.145.244.119 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have struck my vote above per the arguments here. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I was torn on this. The text as written doesn't really do the subject justice (should focus on the record in the lead). There are now four independent reliable sources. Of these, three are long, detailed pieces, for a national sporting record (or the pre-success attempt at it), in two comparatively well-regarded, national Indian newspapers with significant outside-India readership, plus a regional one. (The fourth is a small piece in a lesser-known publication, but certainly does no harm.) The newest addition dwells on the record, not on personal "chit chat" as NitinMlk put it. But the big two really are mostly interviews with little material of encyclopedic interest; they're mostly primary not secondary source material. How much print a major newspaper thought the subject was worth hints at notability, but lengthy, fluffy interview stuff doesn't quite establish it. Part of me wants to think articles like this are the kind of WP:Systemic bias gap we're supposed to be filling. If this article were about an American or Brit, with similar coverage in US or UK newspapers, I suspect it would be a snowball keep. But that's not a good thing.

  I would rather see articles on Indian sportspeople in international-class competition. And this record isn't something subject to regular competition anyway, it's one of those obscure Guinness Book things. I have concerns about the future of the article: is it likely that this subject is ever going to do anything else that edges toward notable? Do we have any indications he's going to become an Olympian or something? More likely that he'll go back to work as a journalist and remain an amateur cyclist. So, in the end I think it should be deleted, and if he unmistakably climbs the notability wall in 6 months or 3 years or whatever, then we'll have something more substantial to write about.

  On the other hand, I think this article would be kept, hands-down, if it were about a bit-part actor who'd landed a role as a witch or a martial-arts monk in a few episodes of a TV show hardly anyone watches, because !voters would seize upon fluffy Entertainment Tonight and People magazine coverage as "establishing notability". Our idea of what constitutes notable in different fields is terribly skewed, and we're giving out WP articles to an F-load of actors who are not notable but simply competent. Same goes for one-hit-wonder pop music acts: the song is notable, the band is not. Entertainment-press coverage is worth far less than this Indian sports coverage, because it's not actually substantive or independent (when it doesn't consists of interviews, it's either primary-source reviewer opinion-mongering, or weird paparazzi creeping). The entertainment press exist for the sole purpose of reporting on and regurgitating trivia, to sell you on the idea that random, overpaid, marginally competent but pretty (or, sometimes, strangely compellingly ugly) people should be worshipped because they're entertaining. Almost all of these publications' funding comes from advertising money of the studios whose shows/films/music they're writing about, and they're more often than not ultimately owned by the same conglomerates as the studios themselves; they're a giant, shared house organ of pseudo-celebrity cults of personality. Anyway, this cyclist is the close equivalent of a one-hit wonder band or an actor with a minor recurring role in four episodes of a TV show. It's a fifteen-minutes-of-fame thing, and WP is terrible at dealing with that concept. We even know we are, but we don't do anything to fix it.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:50, 19 July 2018 (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.