Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Sharda

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. I see a rather clear consensus here to delete, with some of the arguments for retention being little more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Sharda

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

Arjun Sharda (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)

Article subject is a child who got a couple of human interest pieces in local news when they started a nonprofit. A single purpose account decided to dodge the AFC queue after getting a decline on their draft (and COI warning besides), so here we are at AFD. There is no sustained coverage, and no real biographical details. This is a clear case of a WP:BLP1E and ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I suspect a WP:COI issue as well. wound theology◈ 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there is some coverage of debatable significance, the COI point seems strong. Garsh (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi @Garsh2 @Wound theology. With all due respect, would I be able to provide you both some context in hopes of getting you both to reconsider your votes? WP:COI isn't the subject of this AfD, and even so, i've already disclosed in the past to MrOllie twice that I don't have a COI, and if I did, I would declare it. An article can be rewritten itself, but notability can't be changed, no matter how good an article is. The nominator (MrOllie) proposed that the article is WP:BLP1E and does not merit its own article about the subject itself, but the subject of the article is high-profile (intentionally seeking coverage about themselves or such through interviews, PR, etc), and their independent, reliable coverage has been sustained and not a quick burst. Given this, I would believe that the article falls into WP:GNG, but this is a debatable point, because the subject is a minor. At the very least, if you still believe that the article does not meet WP:GNG, I believe draftification would be a significantly better better option, given that notability is borderline/debatable here. Liahuu (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is nothigh-profile nor are the sourcessustained. The subject is not notable as acoder nor as anauthor but simply as a 12-year-old who started a nonprofit. Founding a nonprofit is not notable in and of itself; I did it myself my senior year. WP:BLP1E still stands and WP:COI has not been sufficiently addressed. wound theology◈ 13:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BLP1E, the subject is a high-profile individual. If you don't mind me asking - how are the sources not sustained? I can agree with you - the subject isn't notable as a coder or author, but is notable for their work with their organization.
I agree - founding a non-profit organization is not notable inherently, as many do. However, my main point was that the kid received extensive, significant coverage about he and his organization, from reliable sources which in my opinion would constitute notability. Again, i'm 100% open to debate about this, because the subject's notability is genuinely borderline and falls in a gray area.
As for WP:COI - how would you like me to address your concerns? With respect, i've addressed your concerns about a potential COI. I wanted to first write an article about the kid's nonprofit organization, but had the article draftified and was told by editors that the nonprofit organization itself hasn't received extensive coverage under WP:NGO, only the kid has. I was encouraged by editors to write about the kid - which I did. I asked around on the Wikipedia Discord and the Kiwi IRC, and the consensus has been 50/50 - a lot of editors have mentioned to me that they feel the article meets WP:GNG with the sources, but a lot of editors have also mentioned to me that this seems to feel like local coverage and that WP:BLP1E would be a strong case in any AfD discussion (which we can see, here). Liahuu (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hi @MrOllie! Much thanks for your explanation and review on this subject. I just wanted to clarify a few points.
  • First, you mention that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. You've already given me a COI warning on my talk page in the past, and i've appropriately responded to such answering that I am aware of such policy and will be disclosing any conflicts of interests I have with any subject. In this case, my reply explicitly mentioned that I do not have a connection to the subject. I also explicitly mentioned this to you on your talk page, for a different (but relevant) draft.
  • You're also falsely claiming that my account is a "single purpose account" - when, in reality, you're basing this claim off of the action I took to move my draft into the article space. Dodging the AFC queue is not inherently prohibited for autoconfirmed users, and given the long wait time, I explicitly clarified in my edit summary that I would be skipping a AFC review to get a review by a NPP in a faster time frame. You also claim "after getting a decline on their draft" - but if you noticed, that declined draft version was from early March 2025. If I had genuine ill intentions for Wikipedia, I could have easily dodged the AfC process, far earlier, and moved my rejected draft into the mainspace. I made a large amount of edits before resubmitting, and eventually moving my draft into the mainspace.
  • I would also like to mention that your review of my article about this subject is unjust - you proposed the deletion of my article 20 minutes after it was created, which is clearly in violation of WP:NPPHOUR, as the article does not qualify for speedy deletion or PROD.
  • "There is no sustained coverage" - there are plenty of reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject, and over a sustained period of time. As you can see, the first article covering the kid founding the nonprofit was on January 2, 2024, while there are sources as late as June 2024 covering the kid founding the nonprofit. There's also coverage about the kid's nonprofit starting a new program, etc and the kid's coding skills. Compared to a traditional WP:BLP1E, this spike of coverage has been sustained and the kid is still "relevant", which is a indicator of notability. The subject further doesn't qualify for WP:BLP1E because they are not a low-profile figure, and (no offense) have made attempts to self-promote through press releases, scheduled interviews, and more, which, by definition, makes them a high-profile figure per WP:LOWPROFILE.
  • Could the article be expanded? Of course. This wasn't something I immediately did, especially given that the subject is WP:CHILD, and I don't want to write too much about them. However, I do definitely think that there are areas of improvement.
  • A huge majority of your statements seem to WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL - inaccurately portraying the context of the situation. I would strongly ask that you take edits from new editors like me with WP:GOODFAITH. I would love to discuss any potential issues, but would love to do so in a civil manner, instead of making false, slanderous claims.
  • Comment to closing admin: I believe that the subject is notable per WP:GNG, as there are multiple sources that the article provides that provide in-depth, secondary coverage, over a sustained period of time. If you (closing admin) still decide that this article is not fit for Wikipedia, I would ask that you please decide to take the course of action to draftify than to delete. It's debatable that the subject is borderline notable, and if more coverage pops up about the kid in the next few months, it would be best to have a drafted article about the subject where more sources can be added in the future.
Liahuu (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that you are a single purpose account is not a 'false claim' - 100% of your editing is either about this person or their nonprofit. You've had more than a month to work on your draft, WP:NPPHOUR clearly does not apply - all that really matters in this AFD is that the coverage is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, and your decision to push for an article anyway. Trying to turn this around and making it about me personally will not change that. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, i'm not trying to change the topic of this AfD onto you, and I apologize if you feel that way. Claiming that i'm a "single purpose account", though, is personally insulting to me (WP:CIVIL), given that you aren't aware of the future contributions I intend to make on this platform, and simply claiming me as a marketing/spam account is highly offensive and slander when i've clearly mentioned that I don't have a conflict of interest about the subject, and if I did, I would have declared that. However, the COI is not the topic of this AfD, so here's my take on notability.
As for notability, I have mentioned this in my previous answer, but there is a sufficient amount of notability for the subject, which is the primary concern here and the reason this article has been nominated for AfD. WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here because the subject is high-profile (subject has intentionally decided to seek coverage and have published press releases in the past), and they've received sustained coverage (not a burst of coverage in a month or two). By means of WP:GNG, the subject is notable due to independent coverage in multiple sources. Liahuu (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As MrOllie (talk · contribs) explained, as it stands, you are a single-purpose editor. Possible intent to make future contributions elsewhere are irrelevant. Your only edits on Wikipedia have been related to TLEEM and Sharda, therefore you are a single-purpose editor. It really is that simple, and MrOllie was not being uncivil by pointing this out. Nor did he claim you were a marketing or spam account. You are casting aspersions which is itself uncivil. You should also read WP:WIKILAWYER. wound theology◈ 13:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. For that, I apologize for my comments about those topics, since I can see why they have been misinterpreted, as I myself misinterpreted the definition of "single-purpose editor" itself. I also apologize if you felt that I am WP:LAWYERING (I can see how you feel that way). My comments had the sole intention of clarifying on specific points, and I did not mean to be uncivil myself. Liahuu (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note the Random Dude Here (talk · contribs) and Animelofi123 (talk · contribs). There only edits were to add WP:COI notices to their own user pages regarding this page, which presumably didn't exist. wound theology◈ 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I also found @Mightyaighty after a bit of digging - this individual declared a conflict of interest. They tried creating articles about the kid, and his nonprofit since 2023, but were met with with a block for such behavior indefinitely. Liahuu (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I couldn't vote anything but delete in good conscience for such a young subject (~13 y/o?) unless there was a very solid argument for notability, and that's just not the case here. Even the creator says "notability is borderline/debatable" Zzz plant (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I completely concur with the arguments made by JBL and Zzz plant, and particularly this statement made by FeralOinkThis is a single, WP:TOOSOON human interest story rather than content for an encyclopedia article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arjun_Sharda&oldid=1286773499"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Sharda, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.