Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeev Aggarwal

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Aggarwal (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)

Purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Kindly note Amplus Energy Solutions, a company founded by this businessman is currently going through AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. (I'm willing to change my vote to redirect to Amplus Energy Solutions if it passes its own AfD discussion). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep

1) A couple of in-depth references: Reference1, Reference2. These are the first links I've found.

EDIT: Found what seems to be another in-depth, reliable source. Reference3. This is a case study by IIM-Ahmedabad, IIM-Ahmedabad is frequently compared to Harvard Business School and in my experience clearly has the #1 spot in terms of fame. I haven't been able to access it due to money required to see it, but from the limited synopsis/contents it seems to be very in-depth and covers the subject well. I think these three sources meet the WP:3REFS guideline.

2) I distinctly remember during the creation of the article sifting through multiple sources which seemed non-trivial yet didn't have a very high depth of coverage. This satisfies the WP:BASIC criteria which says that in place of one in-depth story, multiple independent secondary sources can combine to show notability. A simple google search will show multiple such links.

EDIT: Adding a bit more context: Non-triviality on WP:BASIC is defined as how far removed the coverage is from a simple directory entry and how in-depth it is. So, basically what the criteria mentioned above says, from what I understand, is that even if sufficient depth is absent, multiple sources can combine to show notability. There are quite a few links in which news sources have published his opinions on relevant stuff. Which suggests to me that he is viewed as an expert. What's the community's view of this? For eg. Link1Link2. A simple common-sense thought experiment can be: What if a user reads any of these comments in these famous newspapers by the subject of this article and wants to know more about him. What's the first place people go to gather more information? Wikipedia ofcourse! And if we're able to provide information to all of those people, I think it's a valuable article and completely in line with the Wikipedia mission at large. Also, these do seem fairly far removed from a simple directory entry.

3) The fact that there is coverage in reliable print media about the article's subject for a long period of time (Reference, 2007 through recent years, see above referenced articles) shows endurance, a central part in establishing notability.

4) From a common sense point of view, the article referred to in point 1 (Reference1) indicates a case study about this (this refers to both the person and the company he founded) is used at IIM - Ahmedabad. IIM-Ahmedabad is about as reliable as you can get, with multiple sources having called it the Harvard Business School of India. Also that 2006 article mentions that the person in question was an executive at a fortune 200 company. Of-course, this doesn't establish notability in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but this does give broader context important for the article.

Coming to your promotional point, yes, this article and the Amplus Energy Solutions do seem to have an issue with promotional content. The promotional content seems to have been inserted after I had published the article. Those changes should be reverted/cleaned up. --Hmanburg (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Neutral: The listed sources are mainly focused the company he founded, whose article is undergoing it's own AfD and will likely be deleted, and barely mention him. The given links are also mostly quote-mentions which is a pretty common PR tactic. Paying for these types of quote mentions is pretty common in India, and this fact shouldn't be ignored considering the history and subject of the article. My BEFORE search suggests no notability. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure anymore. I don't have enough experience with AfDs of businesspeople and executives. WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE states that "Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company" and Amplus article is deleted. Some American solar company founders do have articles, but I think they should be nominated for deletion too. Maybe I'll nominate them for deletion to see the outcome and then decide here, but currently I can't make a decision. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: I'm not sure if you are referring to the references I have provided above (which I have added to the article). Incase you are, I'll put a few quotes from the mint article and the Ken article, which you might have missed and show that the articles indeed do talk in depth about the subject.

Mint:

The Ken: Hmanburg (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, for some reason your ping to me failed and I didn't get any notification. The Mint article seems reliable, it mainly covers Amplus but it isn't enough to establish the founder's notability. The promotional tone of that article seems to have played a big hand in it's deletion. This doesn't seem to be as promotional. Maybe you can copy this to WP:DRAFT and try to create it through the WP:AFC process? Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: I think it is impossible to get people to change their mind on the internet (and the deletion brigade also is pretty aggressive), but anyway here goes: Although the Mint article does cover Amplus in detail, it clearly focuses on the subject as a major part of the article. I agree that the article alone isn't sufficient to establish notability due to the requirement of multiple sources, but multiple sources are there. You might have done just a quick skim of my original response, missing relevant material. The Mint is obviously an extremely reliable source per this and also what you pointed me to - User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media. The Ken is arguably even more reliable than Mint. Their website clearly shows the level of excellent journalism they do. I did read the article a while back, but don't have access to it now since my subscription has expired. It is extremely in depth about the subject of the article and clearly well researched by the editor. The next source, the IIM-Ahmedabad case. Case Studies by IIM-Ahmedabad usually contain very detailed information and coverage about everything and it's 19 pages long. Although I don't have access to it, due to the general way cases are organised and the synopsis+summary available, I believe it would qualify as the third source and satisfy notability per WP:3REFS. Besides that, I have read print sources (physical newspapers) which cover the subject in-depth; I haven't mentioned this and disregard this since there is no way I can find them or in anyway reference them. These are just the sources I found on the internet by googling. These alone are sufficient to establish notability imo, and I haven't done a deep dive on all sources that exist. I hate to call upon this fact, but I think there is definitely an angle of Eurocentric bias is biographies on Wikipedia due to structural issues. I don't think a similar article about a white American who graduated from Harvard Business School (IIM-A for India) and had US sources with a similar level of reliability would ever have been nominated for AfD. Also, I have seen Indian editors completely ignore Indian articles and hop on to the bandwagon for foreign articles. I have also substantially improved the article, and I agree that in it's previous state it wasn't keepable on Wikipedia. The fact that such a substantial biography with details was possible to create solely through secondary sources strongly suggests notability. Using WP:COMMON I think this article also clearly helps the project in being an online encyclopedia. Considering all this and more, I think notability is clearly established and we should keep the article. Hmanburg (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added valid references (those mentioned above) to the article per WP:HASREFS and have improved the article. Hmanburg (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I suggest that this AfD should stay open for another week if an administrator thinks there is possibility of more discussion. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think the person is notable per WP:BLP, WP:GNG, but the problem is with the tone and information mentioned in the article. It needs to be changed as its not per WP:NPV. The article may be kept but it should be much thin to pass as an encyclopedic entry. --Harryishere (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2020 (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.