Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rana Gujral

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Rana Gujral}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rana_Gujral Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Rana Gujral}})

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Presented sources are either unreliable or self published. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no real sources that indicate notability. Pretty clear WP:PROMO as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Relist A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. The subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I have reviewed and added to the page 3rd party publications that have interviewed the subject on various topics. Google “[https://www.google.com/search?q=rana+gujral&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS694US694&tbm=nws&ei=ljUmXbXBB8_Z-gSTw5L4Dw&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi15Ke5hKvjAhXPrJ4KHZOhBP84ChDy0wMIXA&biw=1440&bih=693&dpr=1 News]” and Google “[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rana+Gujral%22&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ-ZT8hKvjAhWOrJ4KHa4OBOYQ_AUIEigD&biw=1440&bih=693 Video]” search results also provide adequate content that verifies the subject’s notability. Not WP:PROMO. Hopeful Page Creator, JKantorJourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

::Jkantorjourno you do realize that the article was listed yesterday right? Relisting is used if no consensus is reached after a period of time, usually a week at the shortest, to stir up more input and generate a consensus. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

:::GPL93 I am still learning my Wikipedia ropes. Getting better with each day. Thank you for the information. So I should resubmit as overturn (will do). Also, Why go after my one other page David Marlon for deletion? That seems personal. Confused, JKantorJourno. Jkantorjourno (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

:::: It's not personal and its not "your page". Its another article that clearly fails notability standards, although I do find it odd that you have only really made edits related to David Marlon and this article.At this time I'm going to ask that you disclose any professional or personal connection to either subject per WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. The subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. I have reviewed and added to the page 3rd party publications that have interviewed the subject on various topics. Google “[https://www.google.com/search?q=rana+gujral&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS694US694&tbm=nws&ei=ljUmXbXBB8_Z-gSTw5L4Dw&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi15Ke5hKvjAhXPrJ4KHZOhBP84ChDy0wMIXA&biw=1440&bih=693&dpr=1 News]” and Google “[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rana+Gujral%22&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ-ZT8hKvjAhWOrJ4KHa4OBOYQ_AUIEigD&biw=1440&bih=693 Video]” search results also provide adequate content that verifies the subject’s notability. Learning, JKantorJourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not meet WP:NBIO as he has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Nor do his achievements mentioned in the article suggest that he meets WP:GNG. The article has been created by an account with a likely conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and listicles, not real media coverage that is substantively about him. For example, a person is not notable as a contributor to publications just because you reference the fact to his own writing for those publications — the notability test is not the ability to verify that he's been the author of media coverage of other things, it's the ability to verify that he's been the subject of media coverage authored by other people. Similarly, video clips of him speaking are not support for notability either — again, the notability test is not the ability to show sources in which he's doing the speaking, but the ability to show sources in which he's the subject that other people are speaking about. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Overturn. [Revote struck.] Of the 15 sources provided, 4 are feature pieces on him solely, 2 are lists that highlight his involvement as a leader in a space, and 1 is an article that quotes him alongside other experts in the field. Provided also are sources that show he can be categorized as a columnist. I do agree that unless he has authored a book or has a career specifically as a journalist/writer, this can be taken from the page. Jkantorjourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

::Firstly, "overturn" is not a thing AFD can do — we can only "keep" or "delete". Secondly, you may comment as many times as you wish in an AFD discussion, but you are not allowed to "vote" more than once — that is, once you have already initiated a comment with a bolded vote, you cannot initiate any further comments with a restatement of the bolded vote. Thirdly, the references which are "feature pieces on him solely" are not from reliable source media outlets; sources which quote him giving soundbite on a topic are not support for notability and neither are listicles which feature only a blurb's worth of content about him; and a person is not notable as a columnist just because it's possible to use his own columns as circular verification of his status as a columnist, but becomes notable for that only if and when other people do journalism or critical analysis about his column writing. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not doing stuff, it is receiving certain specific kinds of substantive attention and coverage from other people for doing stuff. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• delete the subject doesnt pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, and not even WP:ANYBIO among other criteria. Also a doubtful thing is the creator of the article claims to be new to wikipedia, yet they knew about the previos [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Rana+Gujral deletion.] Assuming good faith, it is possible that they carefully did read the notice before creating the article stating it was created n deleted previously. But as mentioned on their talkpage, they have (mostly) edited only two artcles created by themselves. Like noted above, COI/UPE is highly likely. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.