Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sriram Krishnan

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. Even keep arguments demonstrate a lack of notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sriram Krishnan (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)

Run-of-the-mill business executive. Of the 15 sources in the article, not one single one meets WP:SIGCOV. Obvious promotional effort; Draft:Sriram Krishnan exists but the draft's creator copypasted it into mainspace instead of submitting it for review, when told at the Teahouse that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To demonstrate notability, multiple WP:RS pieces directly on him (Vox, Techcrunch, Times of India) not tied to any direct press release/interview and several passing mentions in other mainstream sources like the NYTimes citation and WSJ citation. Mentioned in the book on Snapchat. Also urge editors to Google for multiple other mentions. Several long standing business people articles on Wikipedia have far less to demonstrate notability. If not possible, would kindly ask for the article to be moved back into draft space so I can work on it more. To specifically address bonadea's critique: the pieces themselves don't claim to know much about the incident in question but that's distinct from the question of whether the pieces demonstrate the subject is notable. Though they didn't seem to know much about the incident in question (the subject leaving Snap), they do go into why the subject's background and notability. Vox is a fairly mainstream publication and even if the others (Techcrunch, Business Insider) are business focused ones. Vipulsshah (talk)

• FTR, the "critique" refers to my evaluation of the "five strongest" sources, here. Two (or three) brief notices don't come close to significant coverage even if they are independent – it is trivial and minor coverage of a run-of-the-mill kind. (The Techcrunch piece refers to a press release and adds a few sentences to that.) Top X-lists, passing mentions, and the like don't do anything to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood your point better but I would dispute your characterization as "run-of-the-mill". Both the Techcrunch and Vox pieces on his leaving Snap don't seem tied to a press release (referring to https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/19/sriram/ and https://www.vox.com/2017/2/19/14662264/snap-sriram-krishnan-exec-departure-ipo) and refer to him as a key executive and his history as notable. The NYTimes piece mentions the subject in a broader context but also has significant parts on him with a photo. He's also in the Snap book cited in multiple places. Altogether confer notability IMO especially as I see several long standing business executive wikipedia pages with a lot less. Several similar long standing pages (see Mike_Vernal as another Facebook executive) have a lot less. But some of you editors have been doing this longer than I have so understand if I'm wrong. I'm also worried that the initial encounter on the Talkspace page (which was my mistake) is coloring this entire discussion a bit. Vipulsshah (talk)

• Delete per Bonadea's analysis. At first sight, it may look like it is reasonably sourced, but a closer examination shows them to be either of the "passing mention" or WP:MILL variety. Incidentally, @MRRaja001: I don't know why you need to WP:CANVAS. Anyone can make their way here in good time; it does, after all, have another ~159 hours to run yet... ——Serial ^# 17:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Since @Girth Summit: have reviewed a similar page called Sunder Madakshira. I just wanted to know his opinion on this, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment MRRaja001, Serial# is correct - it's not appropriate to approach editors about AfD discussions just because they have been involved in discussions on similar topics in the past, that does give the impression of trying to canvas support by contacting people likely to agree with your position; I'm reluctant therefore to cast a !vote, but I will observe that bonadea's analysis does seem to have merit, the sourcing currently in the article certainly looks pretty ropey. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Sorry for that. From next time i won't ask anyone for their opinion on Afd's. I thought i could learn something from your analysis since you're an Administrator. - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MRRaja001, yeah, I understand that - I wasn't meaning to chastise you, just to let you know for next time that it's not the done thing. It's normally seen as OK to post a neutral notice on a message board about a particular AfD (provided it's a relevant notice board, not just a random one where your mates hang out!), but contacting individual editors should only be done if there's a clear reason for doing so, such as notifying an article's author or a really significant contributor to it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Yeah i understand. Thanks for the caution - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Asides the fact that editors who engage in canvassing in any manner irk me, I’d have to agree with the rationale of the nom & Serial Number 54129’s analysis. Celestina007 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : I'm not sure this is possible but as the article's creator I would love to work on it more in draft space ( I made a mistake moving it into main space) . If this possible, I highly request this. As a newbie editor, I messed up and would love to fix my mistake. Vipulsshah (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipulsshah: the article is already in draftspace, feel free to edit away! ——Serial ^# 09:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject appears notable from my Google search results for the subject. But the creator of this article has to work more to establish its notability. For instance there was significant media coverage of the subject in Indian media when he joined Twitter. Though many of the media reports appeared to be sponsored or advertorial (press release) from either the subject or Twitter, some media reports indicate that the story was sourced from the subject's Twitter handle an indication that it wasn't a sponsored press release. Cryforjustice (talk) 16:28, June 2020 (UTC)

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.