- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Gajesh Naik
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gajesh Naik ( | 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)
Lack of notability via reliable sources, lack of reliable sources. Also, crypto related (see GS:CRYPTO). The BLP also reads like a puff piece. Molochmeditates ( talk) 07:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: I simply don't understand why the nominator had to first apply for PROD and then minutes later for AFD. Also I've no clue what they meant by "GS:CRYPTO". Talking about the article, the subject easily passes the notability criteria. There are literally tons of reliable sources available on the internet, the subject has also been mentioned on Forbes and Times of India as well, here's the link to the Forbes article [1]. Also someone who has been against puffery, to see that the nominator has remarked that it reads as a "puff" is rather surprising. If thats the case, puffery can be trimmed down if it's valid and liable enough. Also lack of reliable sources, really? The sources that are used for the article are very much independent sources (or most of it). It's very unlikely the article "lacks reliable sources". Especially when you're still working on it even though it hasn't even been a day since created. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 09:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @ Rejoy2003 I apologize if I didn't do this right re applying for PROD. If you think this was a mistake, please undo my change.
- However, I stand by my original statement regarding reliable sources and notability. Since this is a WP:BLP, the standards are much higher. Also, unfortunately all crypto related topics are under WP:GS - Wikipedia General Sanctions. You can see more here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies.
- I am generally more than happy to help clean up any "puff" but with BLPs, the first step is establishing notability via Reliable Sources (not TOI, Forbes, etc.) The subject is still very young and I would love to see a Wikipedia biography of him. However, I cannot find enough notability in reliable sources yet, hence the nomination for deletion. Otherwise, I would have recommended an article cleanup template to help improve the content. I am also happy to stand corrected if there are more reliable sources than currently present in the article that you can provide. -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 21:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ Molochmeditates Have you taken a look at the article's references now? I've added a list of references from publications local and global. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 21:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional spam article, should be speedied really. One editor, edit-warring bad sources in - David Gerard ( talk) 10:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete BLP of a minor. Give him time to grow and become actually notable before putting up a wiki page about him. -- Dans ( talk) 11:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of RS. The Times of India is regarded as non-RS to questionable RS, and it's about all the article uses for sourcing. The Forbes article stated above is a contributor piece, so non-RS. Sadly, more crypto fluff here. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- As per WP:TOI, it's not completely an unreliable source. If that was the case you wouldn't had find any references being used by subjects associated with India. This case would be different if it was anything "government related". ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 18:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I mentioned above, it's semi-ok, in the absence of any other decent sources, it's still not enough. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. However, as he is young, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON if he does something notable in the future. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely doesn't fail GNG, you might wanna check the references of the article now. Also it's definitely not a case of WP:TOOSOON, we literally have child actors who aren't even in their teens having a Wikipedia page. The subject has done something within the crypto space and the matter can be found in local and global publications. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 21:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- The Business Insider is about a conference, unrelated to him. The Vietnamese article talks about how Twitter interacts with Instagram and doesn't even mention this person. I'm not seeing how they add value to the article; the Vietnamese article appears to have been chosen at random (again, it does not talk at all about this person). Ref #8 is a book that does not talk about him at all, it vaguely mentions the platform in the prior sentence, but has NOTHING TO DO with this person. Ref stacking is happening. I'm not reviewing every ref added to the article; these three are useless and I don't see the point in continuing.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ Oaktree b Business Insider may not SPECIFICALLY talk about Naik but it does mention him. Those Vietnamese articles do mention some parts of him although it's not specifically written about him. Since you have checked two international articles, If I were you I'd rather rely on local articles like Navhind Times, Business Today, Incredible Goa, Sakshi, Ref#9 India Today, Gomantak Times, The Goan Everyday, Ref#17 & 18 again from Gomantak Times, NDTV and Ref#22 DD News Panaji. I'd suggest you to look more for local articles related to Indian publications like I've mentioned above where it's written and told more about the subject. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 04:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Clear GNG fail. The article creator should be ashamed trying to defend this so vociferously. Edwardx ( talk) 00:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why should I be ashamed for defending my work? If you think this should be the case, maybe Wikipedia isn't for you. "AFD" is a process where other editors come together keeping in mind for the betterment of Wikipedia. I'm rather proud as this is my first article within related to cryptocurrency and with this I can actually learn. Not be ashamed. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 03:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for all the reasons given above. -- Bduke ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: NN Digital Creator or a Software engineer, fails WP:GNG for sure, after looking into creators' reply to all delete comment i think they had COI related with this,. --- Misterrrrr ( talk) 15:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- If a major contributor has replied to most of the editors who have voted for "delete", it doesn't necessarily mean they have had a COI with the subject of the article.
✠ Rejoy2003 ✠
(contact) 03:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- You either do or you don't, there is no in-between. If it is COI, just say so. If not, just say so. Either way is fine.
Oaktree b (
talk) 04:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- If it was I'd do what Wikipedia policy says. In this case, I'm not. Not that I have ever had any COI thing in the past, it always comes down to "speculations" from others. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 06:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- You either do or you don't, there is no in-between. If it is COI, just say so. If not, just say so. Either way is fine.
Oaktree b (
talk) 04:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- If a major contributor has replied to most of the editors who have voted for "delete", it doesn't necessarily mean they have had a COI with the subject of the article.
✠ Rejoy2003 ✠
(contact) 03:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Most coverage consists of puff pieces, unreliable sources, trivial mentions. Non-notable. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Mooonswimmer 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This is a teenaged prodigy, but still at the start of his career. In the meanwhile, I don't see how he passes WP:GNG. Forbes used to be 100% reliable, but it sells space on its website for anyone who can pay for a press release. Bearian ( talk) 18:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ Bearian, I agree he is a teenaged prodigy. But not entirely at the "start" of his career. He's been active since 2018, that's like 4 years and has been mentioned in articles since 2019. Regarding Forbes, like I mentioned above it seemed to be a case of WP:FORBESCON; hence I didn't add that as a source in the article. But have you gone through the local publications like I did mention to another editor above? ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 02:38, 11 February 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Gajesh Naik
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gajesh Naik ( | 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)
Lack of notability via reliable sources, lack of reliable sources. Also, crypto related (see GS:CRYPTO). The BLP also reads like a puff piece. Molochmeditates ( talk) 07:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: I simply don't understand why the nominator had to first apply for PROD and then minutes later for AFD. Also I've no clue what they meant by "GS:CRYPTO". Talking about the article, the subject easily passes the notability criteria. There are literally tons of reliable sources available on the internet, the subject has also been mentioned on Forbes and Times of India as well, here's the link to the Forbes article [1]. Also someone who has been against puffery, to see that the nominator has remarked that it reads as a "puff" is rather surprising. If thats the case, puffery can be trimmed down if it's valid and liable enough. Also lack of reliable sources, really? The sources that are used for the article are very much independent sources (or most of it). It's very unlikely the article "lacks reliable sources". Especially when you're still working on it even though it hasn't even been a day since created. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 09:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hey @ Rejoy2003 I apologize if I didn't do this right re applying for PROD. If you think this was a mistake, please undo my change.
- However, I stand by my original statement regarding reliable sources and notability. Since this is a WP:BLP, the standards are much higher. Also, unfortunately all crypto related topics are under WP:GS - Wikipedia General Sanctions. You can see more here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies.
- I am generally more than happy to help clean up any "puff" but with BLPs, the first step is establishing notability via Reliable Sources (not TOI, Forbes, etc.) The subject is still very young and I would love to see a Wikipedia biography of him. However, I cannot find enough notability in reliable sources yet, hence the nomination for deletion. Otherwise, I would have recommended an article cleanup template to help improve the content. I am also happy to stand corrected if there are more reliable sources than currently present in the article that you can provide. -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 21:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ Molochmeditates Have you taken a look at the article's references now? I've added a list of references from publications local and global. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 21:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional spam article, should be speedied really. One editor, edit-warring bad sources in - David Gerard ( talk) 10:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete BLP of a minor. Give him time to grow and become actually notable before putting up a wiki page about him. -- Dans ( talk) 11:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of RS. The Times of India is regarded as non-RS to questionable RS, and it's about all the article uses for sourcing. The Forbes article stated above is a contributor piece, so non-RS. Sadly, more crypto fluff here. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- As per WP:TOI, it's not completely an unreliable source. If that was the case you wouldn't had find any references being used by subjects associated with India. This case would be different if it was anything "government related". ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 18:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I mentioned above, it's semi-ok, in the absence of any other decent sources, it's still not enough. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. However, as he is young, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON if he does something notable in the future. Belichickoverbrady ( talk) 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely doesn't fail GNG, you might wanna check the references of the article now. Also it's definitely not a case of WP:TOOSOON, we literally have child actors who aren't even in their teens having a Wikipedia page. The subject has done something within the crypto space and the matter can be found in local and global publications. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 21:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- The Business Insider is about a conference, unrelated to him. The Vietnamese article talks about how Twitter interacts with Instagram and doesn't even mention this person. I'm not seeing how they add value to the article; the Vietnamese article appears to have been chosen at random (again, it does not talk at all about this person). Ref #8 is a book that does not talk about him at all, it vaguely mentions the platform in the prior sentence, but has NOTHING TO DO with this person. Ref stacking is happening. I'm not reviewing every ref added to the article; these three are useless and I don't see the point in continuing.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ Oaktree b Business Insider may not SPECIFICALLY talk about Naik but it does mention him. Those Vietnamese articles do mention some parts of him although it's not specifically written about him. Since you have checked two international articles, If I were you I'd rather rely on local articles like Navhind Times, Business Today, Incredible Goa, Sakshi, Ref#9 India Today, Gomantak Times, The Goan Everyday, Ref#17 & 18 again from Gomantak Times, NDTV and Ref#22 DD News Panaji. I'd suggest you to look more for local articles related to Indian publications like I've mentioned above where it's written and told more about the subject. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 04:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Clear GNG fail. The article creator should be ashamed trying to defend this so vociferously. Edwardx ( talk) 00:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why should I be ashamed for defending my work? If you think this should be the case, maybe Wikipedia isn't for you. "AFD" is a process where other editors come together keeping in mind for the betterment of Wikipedia. I'm rather proud as this is my first article within related to cryptocurrency and with this I can actually learn. Not be ashamed. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 03:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for all the reasons given above. -- Bduke ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: NN Digital Creator or a Software engineer, fails WP:GNG for sure, after looking into creators' reply to all delete comment i think they had COI related with this,. --- Misterrrrr ( talk) 15:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- If a major contributor has replied to most of the editors who have voted for "delete", it doesn't necessarily mean they have had a COI with the subject of the article.
✠ Rejoy2003 ✠
(contact) 03:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- You either do or you don't, there is no in-between. If it is COI, just say so. If not, just say so. Either way is fine.
Oaktree b (
talk) 04:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- If it was I'd do what Wikipedia policy says. In this case, I'm not. Not that I have ever had any COI thing in the past, it always comes down to "speculations" from others. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 06:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- You either do or you don't, there is no in-between. If it is COI, just say so. If not, just say so. Either way is fine.
Oaktree b (
talk) 04:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- If a major contributor has replied to most of the editors who have voted for "delete", it doesn't necessarily mean they have had a COI with the subject of the article.
✠ Rejoy2003 ✠
(contact) 03:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Most coverage consists of puff pieces, unreliable sources, trivial mentions. Non-notable. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Mooonswimmer 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This is a teenaged prodigy, but still at the start of his career. In the meanwhile, I don't see how he passes WP:GNG. Forbes used to be 100% reliable, but it sells space on its website for anyone who can pay for a press release. Bearian ( talk) 18:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ Bearian, I agree he is a teenaged prodigy. But not entirely at the "start" of his career. He's been active since 2018, that's like 4 years and has been mentioned in articles since 2019. Regarding Forbes, like I mentioned above it seemed to be a case of WP:FORBESCON; hence I didn't add that as a source in the article. But have you gone through the local publications like I did mention to another editor above? ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 02:38, 11 February 2023 (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.