- 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. Not enough IRS, notability issues Less Unless ( talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rajat Khare ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have tried to bring the article back to a neutral form according to wikipedia policies. But in a less friendly way, the article is back to a negative form (which is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. According to WP:BLP1E we should avoid keeping the article (because most sources describe the company the same and the topic is notable for an event). A range of sources can be classified under WP:DEPS, And some of the sources don't even mention the information, which raises a lot of questions at WP:NPOV. Ciudatul ( talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Ciudatul ( talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Delhi, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment we don't delete articles merely because they reflect badly on the subject. We reject them if the bad reflections cannot be justified by sourcing. Looking at the article's history, I see a slow-motion edit-war between
Ciudatul and other editors, mostly relating to whether the sources are reliable, (Ciudatul removing references that they consider unreliable, others restoring). Questions of reliability of sourcing should go to
WP:RSN. If you feel that the situation is unfair to a living individual, take it to
WP:BLPN. AfD is not the correct place to settle this. Incidentally, it's not going to end well for the subject anyway, because even were this article deleted, it would almost certainly become a redirect to
Appin where exactly the same dirty laundry will be aired in public view.
Elemimele (
talk)
13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, but I didn't propose the article for deletion just because it reflects negatively on the subject. I can go back to the version proposed by the editors who created the article, which in my opinion is a disaster (from the history I have analysed that it was not even checked by a special rights editor). The article can be classified safely with
WP:BLP1E. Thanks!
Ciudatul (
talk)
15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can't honestly see how else we can handle this. The problem is that (1) Appin has been going on for a long time (the bad press started in 2010 and the story continues to this day), while Khare is very closely linked with it; and (2) so far as I can make out, every time legal action succeeds in suppressing one article, it generates five more articles about the legal action and the suppression; this is a Hydra, where the legal action will never cut off all the heads. Point (1) makes it hard to argue for BLP1E, while point (2) ensures there will always be sources taking a negative viewpoint. We're here to reflect sources in an unbiased manner. Neutral doesn't mean "neither positive nor negative", it means representative of the sources, so if he becomes famous for being associated with potential suppression of news organisations, it's going to be hard to have an article that doesn't reflect badly on him. Elemimele ( talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, but I didn't propose the article for deletion just because it reflects negatively on the subject. I can go back to the version proposed by the editors who created the article, which in my opinion is a disaster (from the history I have analysed that it was not even checked by a special rights editor). The article can be classified safely with
WP:BLP1E. Thanks!
Ciudatul (
talk)
15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Article deletion is judged on notability, not neutrality, and there are countless
WP:RS that attest to the notability of Khare and the Appin saga. You could argue that Khare is primarily notable for Appin, but the company has since rebranded and various parts have been spun off; if anything, I'd argue that Khare himself is more notable than the companies he has founded, so if they're going to the merged it should be the other way around.
Jpatokal (
talk)
00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the notability, if you do an analysis then you can see that any priority source mentions company, so he is only notable based on the company that is under WP:BLP1E. Regarding neutrality I just added that there is no neutrality in the article. Which sums up that the article should be deleted or redirected to the company article. As far as I saw, it was you yourself who redirected the article to the company in the past. Ciudatul ( talk) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete there is enough information available in the company article. There is no point in creating a separate article.-- Bexaendos ( talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Jpatokal has adequate coverage from
reliable sources meets
WP:GNG.
Tame Rhino (
talk)
19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- No one even questions that some sources come from notable newspapers. The problem is that most sources describe the company, and Rajat is notable only on the basis of the company according to WP:BLP1E. So what you say is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. Thanks! Ciudatul ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary duplication, all information can be found in the company article. GalianoP3 ( talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see much coverage for this person outside of the company, seems to be only notable in that context. I think what we have for the company is sufficient, this is largely pulling minimal facts from those articles to try and build notability here.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is a rather good rundown, but I'm not sure we could build a neutral article about the individual [1], archived here [2]. We'd have to build an article about the hacking/lawsuit, but that's not this... The person here is a part of the story. I doubt they meet criminal notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no standalone notability outside the company which already has its own article. LibStar ( talk) 01:59, 6 April 2024 (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.
- 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. Not enough IRS, notability issues Less Unless ( talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rajat Khare ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have tried to bring the article back to a neutral form according to wikipedia policies. But in a less friendly way, the article is back to a negative form (which is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. According to WP:BLP1E we should avoid keeping the article (because most sources describe the company the same and the topic is notable for an event). A range of sources can be classified under WP:DEPS, And some of the sources don't even mention the information, which raises a lot of questions at WP:NPOV. Ciudatul ( talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Ciudatul ( talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Delhi, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment we don't delete articles merely because they reflect badly on the subject. We reject them if the bad reflections cannot be justified by sourcing. Looking at the article's history, I see a slow-motion edit-war between
Ciudatul and other editors, mostly relating to whether the sources are reliable, (Ciudatul removing references that they consider unreliable, others restoring). Questions of reliability of sourcing should go to
WP:RSN. If you feel that the situation is unfair to a living individual, take it to
WP:BLPN. AfD is not the correct place to settle this. Incidentally, it's not going to end well for the subject anyway, because even were this article deleted, it would almost certainly become a redirect to
Appin where exactly the same dirty laundry will be aired in public view.
Elemimele (
talk)
13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, but I didn't propose the article for deletion just because it reflects negatively on the subject. I can go back to the version proposed by the editors who created the article, which in my opinion is a disaster (from the history I have analysed that it was not even checked by a special rights editor). The article can be classified safely with
WP:BLP1E. Thanks!
Ciudatul (
talk)
15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can't honestly see how else we can handle this. The problem is that (1) Appin has been going on for a long time (the bad press started in 2010 and the story continues to this day), while Khare is very closely linked with it; and (2) so far as I can make out, every time legal action succeeds in suppressing one article, it generates five more articles about the legal action and the suppression; this is a Hydra, where the legal action will never cut off all the heads. Point (1) makes it hard to argue for BLP1E, while point (2) ensures there will always be sources taking a negative viewpoint. We're here to reflect sources in an unbiased manner. Neutral doesn't mean "neither positive nor negative", it means representative of the sources, so if he becomes famous for being associated with potential suppression of news organisations, it's going to be hard to have an article that doesn't reflect badly on him. Elemimele ( talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, but I didn't propose the article for deletion just because it reflects negatively on the subject. I can go back to the version proposed by the editors who created the article, which in my opinion is a disaster (from the history I have analysed that it was not even checked by a special rights editor). The article can be classified safely with
WP:BLP1E. Thanks!
Ciudatul (
talk)
15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Article deletion is judged on notability, not neutrality, and there are countless
WP:RS that attest to the notability of Khare and the Appin saga. You could argue that Khare is primarily notable for Appin, but the company has since rebranded and various parts have been spun off; if anything, I'd argue that Khare himself is more notable than the companies he has founded, so if they're going to the merged it should be the other way around.
Jpatokal (
talk)
00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the notability, if you do an analysis then you can see that any priority source mentions company, so he is only notable based on the company that is under WP:BLP1E. Regarding neutrality I just added that there is no neutrality in the article. Which sums up that the article should be deleted or redirected to the company article. As far as I saw, it was you yourself who redirected the article to the company in the past. Ciudatul ( talk) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete there is enough information available in the company article. There is no point in creating a separate article.-- Bexaendos ( talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Jpatokal has adequate coverage from
reliable sources meets
WP:GNG.
Tame Rhino (
talk)
19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- No one even questions that some sources come from notable newspapers. The problem is that most sources describe the company, and Rajat is notable only on the basis of the company according to WP:BLP1E. So what you say is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. Thanks! Ciudatul ( talk) 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary duplication, all information can be found in the company article. GalianoP3 ( talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see much coverage for this person outside of the company, seems to be only notable in that context. I think what we have for the company is sufficient, this is largely pulling minimal facts from those articles to try and build notability here.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is a rather good rundown, but I'm not sure we could build a neutral article about the individual [1], archived here [2]. We'd have to build an article about the hacking/lawsuit, but that's not this... The person here is a part of the story. I doubt they meet criminal notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no standalone notability outside the company which already has its own article. LibStar ( talk) 01:59, 6 April 2024 (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.