Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Engineer

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. There is consensus that the material existing and available doesn't meet notability requirements. Star Mississippi 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Engineer

[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)

Entity is being promoted. Note, WP:NOTCV. Possible WP:UPE/WP:COI. Besides that, it lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPOV . Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: The article needs a clean up. Although the current version is filled with poor sources, I could find WP:FORBES sources with significant coverage.[1][2] and another one from Business Standard.[3] - SUN EYE 1 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Forbes has a dubious history in promoting businesses and businesspeople in guise of journalism. Not much idea about Business Standard. but its easy to assume that all three above-mentioned sources lack WP:BIO, WP:NPOV, and WP:INDY. Owners' interviews and quotes by his son(s) doesn't establish independent coverage. -Hatchens (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens, I agree with you here, the article does look like a promotion but WP:RSP records WP:FORBES as "generally reliable". - SUN EYE 1 17:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suneye1, Correct, WP:FORBES is generally taken into consideration (as per WP:RSP) when the pieces are written by staff writers (with dedicated bylines). However, when such publications carries a good number of quotes that are directly pulled out from the interviewee or anyone close to interviewee then it fails at WP:INDY. In this entity's case, Forbes is merely repeating his/their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, such type sources should be treated like self-published material/WP:USESPS. -Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just adding my two pennies: Forbes also publishes articles by contributors in addition to paid staff. Those have often been of dubious quality. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The sources I provided above are probably from an interview and gives too much undue attention to the subject's own views, thus failing WP:INDY. Can't find any other sources for significant coverage.- SUN EYE 1 08:59, 21 January 2022 (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.