Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anoop Madhavan

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. ✗plicit 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Madhavan

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Article is WP:REFBOMBed with mostly promoted content, about the safety training sessions and disaster preparation, with Madhavan mentioned only in passing. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of him in a WP:BEFORE search, or of the company Survival Instincts. Maybe some can be found in reliable sources in Tamil. Proposed deletion by User:Ferien was contested with no rationale, by an account whose owner admitted coordinated editing, and Survival Instincts was speedy deleted A7. Wikishovel (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Wikishovel (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete, professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. —siro χ o 08:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and lacking significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks of Sathishcm. Wikishovel (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep- I stumbled upon the page and discoverd it didn't have categories. I added categories, reviewed and re-arranged some of the references. Taking a deeper look at the sources cited, I believe they meet WP:RS. The subject Anoop, is cleared featured organically in most of the sources cites. These are not paid sources. He earned them organically. Hence the page meets WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG

Take a look at the major sources:

1. The New Indian Express. This is a clear WP:RS with a wiki page. The subject is featued -
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

2. The Times of India This is a clear WP:RS with a wiki page. The subject is featured

3. The Hindu. This is another clear WP:RS. The subject is featured

Here

The above is a clear analysis of the majority of the sources cited. Having gone through them, I strongly believe that the subject passes the notability guidelines as seen in WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG.Zanaottaja Eei (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanaottaja Eei: may I ask what you mean by "featured organically"? The references are indeed from national newspapers, but apart from the final reference 3 you listed above, all of the above sources are about training sessions and disaster preparation, and mention him only in passing. Wikishovel (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Featured organically" means that Anoop did not pay the newspapers to feature his name in the articles. If he were to pay for them, you'll notice obvious spamming of his name in the sources. He earned the mentions as a result of his work. WP:BASIC clearly states:

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There are multiple sources cited. You even agreed that the last 3 sources featured him well. You also agreed that the sources are reliable national dailies hence WP:RS.

The fact that you agree the newspapers are WP:RS/national dailies and that he is featured greatly in the final 3 references are enough to withdraw this AFD. I recommend you withdraw it. Thank you Zanaottaja Eei (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, lots of WP:Passing mentions in reliable sources doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV. There is so far only one apparently substantial source cited that is about Madhavan himself: this one that you listed as #3 above. I say "apparently" because the source is paywalled, but the first few paragraphs suggest that the article is about him. Wikishovel (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per user Zanaottaja Eei. Passes WP:GNG. I found an article WP:RS, 1. The Hindu article 2.CarribeanKing (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference 1 is already cited in the article, and again, only mentions him in passing. And there's that Hindu reference already mentioned above. So we still have just one reference actually about Madhavan, and the rest are only passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with users Zanaottaja Eei and CarribeanKing. Definitely passes WP:GNG.

These newspaper articles even have photographs of him at the head of articles, and quotes from him.

This article even has a video of him speaking.

The Hindu

They are NOT WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS nor WP:Passing mentions.

Shiltonjojo (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) — Shiltonjojo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - added by Wikishovel in violation of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS see comments here. [reply]

@Wikishovel I posted five leading newspaper articles with photographs and quotes to establish NOT WP:Passing mentions. How does my account’s age matter, when I am making an assertion of WP:GNG based on neutral, nontransitive, reliable, verifiable, secondary, published, independent and significant coverage sources from four major Indian newspapers? Instead of sneak comments, I implore you to focus on the message by verifying the five articles. Lastly please note, even if WP:GNG facts are asserted from anonymous (IP) sources – those facts will still remain facts. I also disclosed why I choose not to be anonymous here in response to your remarks.

Shiltonjojo (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes WP:GNG and clause 2 of WP:ANYBIO owing to his contributions in disaster management awareness which are referenced by WP:RS: URL URL URL. Topboy92 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Below is a source assessment table. Beyond the promotional aspects of the article, this demonstrates that based on sources we have the subject does not meet WP:BASIC. We don't have information necessary to write an encyclopedia article about the subject. —siro χ o 21:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment The above source assessment is not objective. It was prepared by one of the editors "User:Siroxo" who was the first to vote "delete" on this AFD. The assessment is clearly biased and subjective. That's his personal opinion. The fact remains that The New Indian Express, The Times of India, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle are WP:RS and notable national tabloids. People don't pay to get featured or mentioned in them most often. The subject "Madhavan" is featured organically in almost all the sources as a result of his work. He didn't pay to be featured. The articles were written by 3rd parties. WP:BASIC clearly states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Getting mentioned or featured in such national tabloids is a huge honor. Hence [WP:GNG]] is clearly met here. Zanaottaja Eei (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note I have blocked all of the editors who have !voted keep so far as socks of the same editor. Further information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathishcm. I expect it's an LTA: I'm not sure which one, but they apparently know how to file retaliatory SPI cases, and how to use various types of VPN services and proxies. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep*.. Yes, this is a single purpose account. I don't have any intention of editing Wikipedia. I am worried about how things run on the platform. I am not happy at what is happening on this discussion. It's clear that this man meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia as seen in the reliable news-related REFERENCES cited on the page. His enemies vowed to mess him up even on En wiki. This is sad.

I recommend the admin or the CU editors should run a check on user:Wikishovel. From day one, he's hell bent on removing this page. He attacks every other editor that voted "Keep". His edits clearly shows something is fishy. I am not trying to engage in "Argumentum Ad Hominem". But those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Run a CU on all these editors to ensure justice. Cheers everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weahdi Ohii (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) — Weahdi Ohii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, per source assessment above and lack of substantial content in the article. --hroest 18:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'''Delete'''. Seems extremely promotional; WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Mason (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Respected Sir, I think the page is irrelevant and I have a DELETE vote. It’s my first edit, so please forgive me if there are any mistakes.
I am also hoping to get an answer on a question from an administrator. I am a phd candidate defending my thesis on data democracy, and Wikipedia is one of my primary research sources.
Instead of deleting the keep votes from sock puppets, why don’t you just summarily delete this offending page? Isn’t that a best to conserve Wikipedia resources and prevent spam data from accumulating? DataDemocracy (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)— DataDemocracy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As editors, we leave software resource optimization to the developers of the MediaWiki software Wikipedia runs on. You can read about our deletion policies at WP:Deletion policy, and about this specific process at WP:Articles for deletion —siro χ o 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Siroxo's source assessment (I'm leaning towards accepting the Hindu source as in-depth but it's only one and we need multiple sources) and the promotionalism on display both here and in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source analysis (and being promotional, too). Suitskvarts (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2023 (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.