Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigam Arora
=[[Nigam Arora]]=
:{{la|Nigam Arora}} – (
:({{findsources|Nigam Arora}})
I've been searching for WP:RS compliant sources and citations. I have not yet succeeded. I've stripped out non RS sources, cited the guy's book (anyone can have an ISBN and a book, so that doesn't make him notable), and cited his patent (yup, anyone can have a patent, too). He's verifiable in the same way that I'm verifiable. But he is not notable in the same way that I am not notable. Because there is an editor actively seeking to improve the article I have chosen AfD instead of the Speedy route, even though it could so easily be speedied. But I want to play fair with the effort made so far. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep
*In view of the latest improvements to this article, the request for deletion should be moot. The article is completely rewritten. Most of the comments on this page are prior to rewriting of the page and addition of 34 cites, most of them of national or international scope.
When majority of comments on this page were made, there were no cites in this article.
The article meets all the requirements of Wikepedia regarding Biography of Living Persons. I request the Administrator to read the completely rewritten article and make a decision based on Wikepedia guidelines on notability and not based on consensus.If this course is not possible, please inform me the procedure for appeal.
John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams
- In my work on this article so far I have accumulated a ton of additional material and additiona cites ( not presently in the article) not only on Nigam Arora but also on power plants, change management, new systems, etc.
I plan to continue to add to Nigam Arora page as I get time and invite others to contribute to this page. I also intend to contribute the material I have found to other pages on Wikepedia and also will start new pages where appropriate.
Can someone please guide me how to write about controversies? In the literature there are fans of Nigam Arora's inventions and there are detractors. I would like to take a balanced approach by equal space to those who do not like him and and those who praise his work.
--John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams
- I started out knowing very little about Nigam Arora. After reading Nigam Arora's book on Theory ZYX, I turned to Wikipedia to find more about him. There was nothing. When a colleague of mine asked me if I knew more about Nigam Arora, I did some research and wrote a brief aricle on Wikepedia.
I had always thought of Wikepedia as a collegial place where volunteers selflessly put in lots of effort to benefit others with information. Since over years, I have benefitted from Wikepedia I thought it was now my turn to contribute.
Was I in for a big surprise? Within minutes of publishing a straigtforward article my head was bitten off. Certainly I was ignorant about Wikepedia policies, but it would been nice if experienced Wikepedians offered to help instead of intimidating me. Then I found extremely helpful people in RohnJones and Icairns; my heartful thanks to these two. Also my thanks to all those from whose work I have benefitted over the years.
The insipiration I got from RohnJones and Icairns sustained me through the next upheavel which I am hoping was the result of mis-identity.My request for cooperation was unheeded. I was again surprised that when there is a considerable evidence that someone who has a vendetta against me in REAL LIFE may be a person on Wikepedia, there appears to be no good way to clear up the issue in a civil and amicable manner. The situation is further complicated because, again to my surprise,some people on Wikepedia do not use their real identity. In any case, my apologies for harsh words,in the event of mis-identification on my part. There is no way to confirm because of fictional identities.
It would appear to me that less robust newcomers would simply quit if they face what I faced on Wikepedia in writing my first article. I almost quit, because I have nothing to gain from this article on Nigam Arora. Perhaps this is on purpose and this makes sense if Wikepedia is overpopulated with editors and newcomers are not welcome. If this is the case, I suggest to those who run Wikepedia to post a clear sign, 'NEW EDITORS ARE NOT WELCOME' Such a clear language would help other newcomers not go through the pain, abuse and intimidation I went through.
On the other hand, if new editors are welcome, I suggest to those who run Wikepedia to craft strict policies so that new comers are not subjected to abuse. Most new comers will make mistakes and will not be familiar with extensive policies of Wikepedia. What would be wrong in holding hands of newcomers, teaching them and being gentle with them when they make mistakes? Should Wikepedia decide to go in this direction, I will be glad to help and invite those in power to let me know how best I can help Wikepedia.
--John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams
- I am in the process of adding more citations and hope to do so over the next couple of weeks.
- This nomination has been made by a person who has not disclosed his real identity and there is evidence that this person is motivated by a personal vendetta. I am willing to present this evidence to the administrator if this person discloses his real identity.
- It is unfortunate that this person has declined my invitation to work with me to improve the page and instead has insisted on the deletion route.
- I also recommend that the administrator contact Nigam Arora, the person who is the subject of this page.
- In any case, I will improve the page over the next couple of weeks and I invite all volunteers to help to ensure this page meets all requirements of Wikepedia
- If this person changes his mind and is willing to cooperate in good faith to improve the page, I will be glad to work with him
John williams 7 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC) John Williams
:*Comment I am disappointed with this editor's personal attacks and lack of civility. I commend WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to him. He has now attacked me on my talk page and here. I am no longer interacting with him. For the record, I have no idea who Nigam Arora is, nor am I the least bit interested. The article is one that fails to assert notability. It cites no reliable sources. In its current state it should not be here. If he is that passionate about creating it then user space is the place for it until such time as the subject achieves notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - only hits I could find anywhere were where his company was involved in a lawsuit - no GNews hits, etc. No reliable source cites. If the author would prefer, he could work up the article in his user space - that would be the simple solution. As is, he is not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC))
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. Additional WP:BLP concerns here since some coverage is related to the company lawsuit and as such is contentious in nature. I should note that the article's creator made an attempt[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&diff=prev&oldid=345556846] to make the nominator reveal their real identity, in violation of WP:OUTING. Nsk92 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment thank you for alerting the creator to the need to refrain from unpleasant behaviour. A less robust person than I am might have been intimidated, so such shots across the bows by an independent editor are important. I would like to make sure that this does not influence anyone either to !vote to delete the article or to keep it because of that behaviour. All editors make mistakes, many turn out to be a considerable asset here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I do realize that John williams 7 is a new user who might not yet be familiar with Wikipedia policies (which is why I left a warning at his talk page rather than directly report him at AN/I). However, now that he has been informed about the WP:OUTING policy, I hope he will abide by it. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete due to lack of evidence that he passes WP:GNG. Google news search found some court opinions mentioning his name in the case KnowledgeAZ vs Jim Walter Resources (as far as I can tell, a lawsuit over a non-compete clause), but we don't generally allow court documents as sources. Other than that, there are just a couple articles in the Indiana business journal that don't say enough about him to use as sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Userfy, since the creator wants to improve the page over the next two weeks, and add references. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability. Most references found are mere mentions, without substance. He may be "hot stuff" in Indianapolis, but one local blurb is not significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep
Most of the comments appear to be prior to rewriting of the page and addition of 34 cites. Previosly there were no cites.
The comment about only a blurb in Indianapolis is strange and not based on facts. 29 of 34 cites are of national or international scope. In addition there are several cites related to Indianapolis starting from 1987 and stretching over a long period of time.
Nigam Arora has verified record of notability across two continents over a period of at least 23 years. Certainly two continents are bigger than the city of Indianapolis alone. Perhaps honestly there is some confusion between Indanapolis and India. India is a large country in the continent of Asia and Indianapolis is a city in USA.
He founded two of the fastest companies in the USA not just Indiana. His company,Action Sytems Inc was named 29th fastest growing company in the United states, not just state of Indiana or city of Indianapolis. This company did business with over 50 nuclear plants across the globe. I just checked and found there are no nuclear plants in th state of Indiana or city of Indianapolis. As a matter of fact there are only 104 operating commercial nuclear plants in the entire country of USA.
His company Action Systems Technology was ranked 103rd fastest growing company in the United States, not in the state of Indiana.
His companies did business internationally, not just in one state of the United States.
United States Patent and Trademark Office is part of the Federal Government of the United States and not part of Indianapolis city government.
United States Patent and Trademark Office granted major patent claims to him out of Washington DC and not out of Indianapolis. It appears that United states Patent and Trademark office has no presence in the city of Indianapolis. The 28 patent claims are enforceable across the USA, not only in the city of Indianapolis and enforceable under the Federal Law. A city or state has no jurisdiction over patents: major patents are not the matter of one city .
His inventions have been used all over the world, not just in one city. I have gathered lot of material on his inventions and there use across the world.
Amazon.com , and Barnes and Noble are international organizations and not based in city of Indianapolis.
He has been called foremost expert in radiation monitoring in power plants by a magazine of international scope. Since there are no nuclear plants in Indianapolis or the state of Indiana, this activity is obviously carried out soewhere else. As a matter of fact, sources I have gathered from the library show that Nigam Arora's activities have been international in scope.
It is not believable that the city of Indianapolis has 369 municipalities if that is what a prior comment implies; Nigam Arora was the founder and CEO of the B2B exchange for 369 municipalities, at least 368 of these municipalities would have to be outside the city of Indianapolis.
There is lot more I can add to this argument and will add if an appeal is needed.
Let us not become members of the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY. Just because someone does not accept that the earth is round does not mean Wikepedia should declare the earth flat
--John williams 7 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams
Keep
Majority of the cited sources are major publications with large circulation and national or international scope. These are available in libraries. I found them in libraries.
Subscription based sources do not show up in Google search. Older sources also do not show up in Google search. Some sources show up in Google , but the searcher will have to be dilligent to go throuh all the pages on Google not just the first few pages.
Older sources also do not show up online. International sources, especially older ones are often not on Google.
I am new to Wikepedia, but it seems strange that comments are made based solely on the first couple of pages of Google search. What happened to going to libraries, like I did for this article, and doing proper due dilligence?
What would be the point of Wikepedia if WIkepedia must be limited to first few pages of Google? In such a case Wikepedia would be redundant and there will be no point to its existence. I am new to wikepedia, so I do not know what Wikepedians want? But it seems to me the point of Wikepedia is to have well researched articles and not merely be a duplication of the first few pages of Google.
Consensus is wonderful, but it must be informed consensus. Once upon a time there was consensus that earth was flat.
I apologize if I have offended anyone, but it seems to me Wikepedia is not well served when a comment is not informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John williams 7 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I have been looking at the citations in the article. I do not feel that many of the citations themselves are (yet) particularly useful and have made a comment to that effect on the article's talk page giving positive suggestions. There is a huge rash of apparent citations, but these simply refer, in a great part, to journals (etc) and issue dates, but this is not, of itself, a useful citation. We need the article, the title, and ideally the author and the page number in the journal, for example, with paper media. As it stands at present I do not yet view the article as one which verifies any asserted notability. I also deny emphatically the validity of the personal attacks directed at me in much of the rhetoric above. For the record I neither know nor care who Nigam Arora is, nor do I have any idea who the editor is who is making such impassioned allegations against me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Fails notability as an author; can't evaluate him as a business person. But as an author, his only book is self-published, and its only reviews are at the Amazon and B&N websites. This is not enough to establish notability as an author and casts doubt on his notability in general. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I was surprised to learn that LA Press Inc, the publisher of the book is self publishing, but the only links I can find to it or mentions of it are on Nigam Arora owned (or fan) websites. See [http://www.theoryzyx.com/mediakit.htM/about_la_press.htm this link]. I am concerned that all this fuss is about a guy who self published the only book that is alleged to be notable in the article. The closing admin for this AfD will need to take some trouble to review the evidence presented in the article to judge whether it should remain or go. With regard to your comment on the businessman I can't see 28 patents, only one, and I can't see anything that asserts notability or, yet, verifies it. All I see are empty citations which may or may not lead to articles which assert and/or verify Arora's notability. A valid solution is to userfy the article for now and allow its recreation if sufficient and substantial citations are added correctly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The only "LA Press Inc." I could find online is [http://www.lapressprinting.com/ here], where it sounds more like a print shop than a "publisher". --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::::In neither case does it suggest that the book or the author is notable. Anyone can pay to have a work published and anyone can have an ISBN. Come to that anyone can register a patent, or 28 patents Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Delete There's a large number of sources to publications which, on their own merits, are verifiable and can confer notability. That said, no effort has been made to verify any of the sources, and I'm more than a little surprised that, given the sheer number of them, that Google Scholar and all their other search libraries doesn't turn up more than a mention or two of this man. This is generally the case when the sources constitute "trivial coverage," in my experience.
Additionally, as an aside, I would counsel the article author to tone down the rhetoric in this discussion, as well as the sheer volume of postings. None of this is helping your cause. Indeed, I'm generally inclined to consider any situation in which an enormous amount of justification regarding notability is required to be a situation in which notability probably doesn't exist. I don't make a final judgment based on that, but that is an impression that exists. Just a thought! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gaming the System and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Arbitration request has been filed in this matter. I feel as a good citizen it is my duty to give the arbitation committee an opportunity to preserve the integrity of Wikepedia. Other than privacy matters that can not be discussed here, the nominator has removed the links that disprove his point and replaced it with another link to prove his point. I have nothing to gain from this article, so I will not be posting here anymore. AS a side note, I have never claimed that this person was notable as an author. This person is notable because o his lifetime of inventions, product development and successfully commercializing of the inventions.
I encourage all to go to [http://USPTO.gov] and see for youself that the premise behind deletion that 'anyone can register a patent' is blatantly false. Patents are not registered, they are granted after a long complex process documented on the site. I also encourage all to use PAIR system on USPTO site to understand the long arduous process of 7 years for the grant of the patent in question.
I also encourage all to review Wikipedia:Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Notability (people) I would also encorage all who bother to read the two guidelines to go to the history page of this article and see for yourself how the system has been gamed, the links that show the te premise behind deletion is false have been vandalized and how the process has been abused.
Please also see how this is the second attempt by this person to delete this article, see for yourself and make your own judgement
Please also visit Revision history of Radiation monitoring in power plants, an article I had just started. The article is nominated by the same person for deletion before I even had a chance to work on it. Same pattern on the part of this person as he did Nigam Arora article by nominating it for speedy deletion when I had just started on it.
I also encourage all to visit Template:Cite news, judge for youself that ALL Essential parameters OF THE GUIDELINE HAVE BEEN MET, and an earlier comment on this page is gaming the system by falsely stating the policy. Wikipedia:Gaming the system provides a good example that parallels what is happening on this page.
In any case Wikepedians, this is good bye for now. I will no longer be posting on this page or on Wikepedia. I came to Wikepedia to help better the Wikepedia, not to engage in GAMING the SYSTEM, not for warfare, not to be abused and certainly not to give this one particular person opportunities to obssessively use Wikepedia to take revenge for what happened between him and me in real life. This person has been on Wikepedia for a while and is good at gaming the systems and bringing his buddies to back him. I have no reason to copy the behavior. My response is -- good bye.
My parting suggestion is to please be informed before commenting and also look up the paper media, for example look at INC. magazines Dec 1987. Dec 1988 and Dec 1989 issues to see rankings of Arora's companies. Please understand that GOOGLE COVERAGE BEFORE ABOUT 2002 IS VERY SPARSE.
Wikipedians, it is a bigger question of integrity of Wikepedia . It is up to you to chose between supporting gaming the system for personal revenge or supporting the best interest of Wikepedia; to choose between following the published policies of Wikepedia such as the one on
Template:Cite news as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people) , and voting on this page or other pages by being bamboozled by a master gamesman such as the case here regarding the patent.
Consensus is wonderful as long as it is informed and not manipulated.
Debate is yours. I will not be here.
THanks to those who helped and apologies if I did anything wrong. I am a straight forward person and hate manipuation with a passion. Since I have nothing to gain by staying here to fight manipulation, I do not belong here.
Good Bye,
--John williams 7 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams
: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.