Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Bhadana: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:13, 11 October 2018

Amit Bhadana (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)

Fails WP:GNG since the subject is non-notable, and has no proper coverage from independent sources. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has bee n included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has 9 million subscribers and 500 million views so is one of the very most popular YouTube personalities in India, also searches show press coverage passing WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, provide them.And, likes/subscribers does not contribute an iota to wiki-notability.∯WBG^converse 08:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft - even though Bhadana is a known personality, the Reference list on the page leads to his own site and general blogs, except for the publication by Hindustan Times. The page says he won a "National Academy Award" - couldn't find any source to verify this except for a Tweet by Bhadana holding 2 awards. The person is popular but not notable as per Wikipedia terms. I vote to move the page to Drafts where it can be worked up at a later date. Csgir (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You just confirm two things: He claimed to "won" an unverifiable award. His tweet is not reliable here, this is clear.
• You agree he *doesn't meet notability guidelines*. Please see this. It's meaningless moving non notable article to draft, otherwise AfD should fold up and any non notable article just be moved to draft.
• This is simple issue. Does he have multiple, independent coverage from reliable sources?; if yes, bring them here, if no, then he's not better than all other deleted articles and should be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Drafity I agree with Csgir. Being a "known" personality isn't encyclopedic, in depth coverage is. If searches show coverage, please provide them. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Nothing resemblant to SIGCOV other than this promotional tabloid-journalism.Mere name-mentions are located.∯WBG^converse 08:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Have been watching this article for sometime but fail to understand how it's encyclopedic. Lacks SIGCOV from reliable sources and fails GNG completely. Entirely promotional stuff built upon total unreliable sources such as this fan's blog and back reference to Youtube and his own self promotion blog. For those saying move to draft, it was once moved but immediately moved back to mainspace as is to be expected from generally non notable promotional stuffs. So moving it is worthless. If it's notable, just shows us multiple independent RS discussing him directly and in detail. If no such sources exist then it's meaningless moving it to draft.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I had withdrawn the nomination and therefore as it has been reverted, would vote keep. The subject is surely a notable ones with millions of subscribers. Passes GNG. My initial nomination was a mistake, since I had not done WP:BEFORE - Knightrises10 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not sure this should have been reopened as there were no delete votes except draftify votes and a keep vote so it is a bit of a grey area. One of Indias most popular youtubers and there is nothing wrong with the Hindustan Times article which is significant coverage in a reliable source and is not a press release as his YouTube channel is his own and not affiliated to a TV channel or other media enterprise so sticking with my earlier keep vote, but at wost draftify, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, page views of this article average circa. 1000 a day so he is obviously high profile Atlantic306 (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having so many subscribers does not of itself make notability. Only one ref talks about the subject and that appears to be an interview. The rest are statistical reports which provide facts but are not independent. This fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added some more sources to the article. Also, he has been mentioned by the Indian actor Varun Dhawan, which surely shows he is a very notable and well known Youtuber in India. Knightrises10 talk 18:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly lack of WP:SIGCOV for dedicating a stand alone article. Capitals00 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and subscribers count is not relevant much. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the subject does not have a WP:SIGCOV required for a WP:BIO also fails WP:NACTORorWP:NARTIST--DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added more Hindi sources and will like others to take a look :-) I think even WP:BEFORE is enough to confirm the notability of this Youtuber. Knightrises10 talk 18:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knightrises10, I have reviewed all the hindi language sources, Passing mentions and one para introduction does not count as WP:SIGCOV --DBigXrayᗙ 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is not a passing mention. Same goes for one of the other two Hindi language sources. Knightrises10 talk 19:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]