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. Delete votes address sources, and while the keep votes attempt to refute them, they do not do so in a manner that is able to achieve consensus. Additionally the keep votes do not address the arguments for promotion in a way that is consistent with policy—simply claiming someone is notable is not a counter argument to the deletion votes on spam grounds as promotion is a violation of WP:NOT, which is an independent grounds for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Chanchlani[edit]

Ashish Chanchlani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per the previous two afds, he still isn't notable - his Nick win is the only thing that changed but it hasn't resulted in any additional coverage. Forbes 30 under 30 is meaningless, it has no value and it's based on a lottery and persistence and is awarded to 600 people a year, which is far from unique. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani has an extensive review of the sources (minus the current passing mentions which are worthless.) The Nick award is interesting from a Wikipedia point of view because it's a kids choice award, and yet his channel is very much not a children's channel, which leads me to believe the voting was, let's say untoward... CUPIDICAE💕 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: All sources claim, and a career was needed which I made. Ashish Chanchlani#Career — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.238.206.29 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: No new definitive GNG sources to help since July 2020. 30 under 30 doesn't establish notability. The Nick award really depends on better outside coverage and is about as notable as a Streamy award or a Behind The Voice Actors award. As I said in the CSD, this should have been rewritten completely at draft without any use of unreliable/not-so-reliable sources. If he is as popular as Dream (YouTuber) (23.5 vs. 24.4 million) there should be multiple RS'es that give him lots of coverage. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF The more I dig into the Nick award, the more concerns I have about it's value and general trustworthyness. Why is a channel - geared very clearly toward adults, publishing content like this, winning a KCA, intended for children? KCA is also overall kind of irrelevant to notability because all it requires is an online-click campaign. Not to mention our article on KCA India leaves me to believe this isn't the same award it once was. CUPIDICAE💕 19:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THe idea that because he has x viewers and so did y person, so he should be notable is flawed though. As the Nick award shows and the countless number of Facebook likes for certain websites that don't even exist, viewers and subscribers can be bought. The only thing that matters here is sourcing. And it simply doesn't exist yet. CUPIDICAE💕 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up Dream because he had an extensive AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination) where a pile of sources were vetted or rejected to clean up the article and other editors eventually allowed for enough RS'es to show up. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India depends more whether it's an established award or whether it's a trendy for that edition award or one of those magazine top 10 / year-end awards which don't really give the person anything except the media mention. It's hardly the Emmys though. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's some "favorite youtuber" garbage. Which is frankly laughable. Also their own website no longer works and doesn't appear to have worked for about a year, so that says a lot. CUPIDICAE💕 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I fail to understand how come someone who is nominated for notable award like Indian Television Academy Awards See This and has won multiple awards like Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India This, see this and this and World Bloggers Awards See Forbes article mentioning his win, Apart from this he has references on highly reliable sources like Forbes, BBC World, Indian Express, Telangana Today, Republic Wolrd, Business Insider and many others How come this fails to not pass WP:GNG? Dtt1^Talk 20:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly explained to you, these are all brand posts, press releases, unreliable and deprecated or social media. Go take a long read of WP:RSP. CUPIDICAE💕 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a single reference mentioned above is a brand posts, press releases, unreliable and deprecated at all If you have checked them closely then you must not have written this, and about WP:RSP I am VERY WELL aware about it and have gone through it briefly The Indian Express and others all are among reliable ones in the list :) Kindly Check Dtt1^Talk 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dtt1 WP:IDHT is jsut as disruptive as vandalism. I don't know if you're incapable or unwilling but literally the sources you linked: published by the awarding body, social media, press release, press release, a contributor piece which isn't reliable per WP:RSP about an award that isn't notable and cannot be verified in actual rs, a worthless 30 under 30 award given to 600 people a year that parrots an unverifiable story from a contributor, an interview that isn't remotely close to independent, a cruft piece in a listicle, a rehash of his video which i already outlined it's lack of appropriateness in the prior afd, deprecated source as per WP:RSP, literally sayas brand post in the header! CUPIDICAE💕 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As per Dtt1 (talk · contribs)'s comments, plus a lot of his youtube videos from 2 years ago were school and college oriented, and viewed a significant number of times. It’s entirely plausible that he legitimately won the kid’s choice award, and that his audience has since, let’s say … grown up. He also won an award at the Cannes Film Festival. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, he did not win an award at the Cannes Film Festival. He won a non-notable award where the award function (a one-off event) was held in Cannes – no connection to the film festival. (Cannes hosts many festivals and events of various kinds, the city is known for it.) This was discussed at some length in one of the previous AfD discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani. --bonadea contributions talk 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right - I withdraw that statement. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the kids choice awards "Grew up" is just as flawed as Dtt1's WP:TE and has no basis in policy. What sources is this based on? CUPIDICAE💕 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the awards grew up, I was referring to Chanchlani's youtube audience.SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his audience didn’t grow up magically in the 2 weeks since the award. It’s the kids choice awards. But what sources can you provide to support your statement as I’ve thoroughly debunked those that Dtt1 provided. CUPIDICAE💕 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article as written does not make a case for general notability.
  • • The onus is on the author of an article to establish notability under any circumstances.
    • The onus is even more emphatically on an article to establish notability when previous deletion discussions have found that the subject is not notable.
    • There have been two previous AFDs and an MFD.
    • Prior articles did not establish notability, and this article does not establish notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: The current article mentions,"Chanchlani was interviewed on Worklife India..." This show is a regional chat show and NOT an interview of notable personalities. The Indian Television Academy Awards is a vanity award event. Moreover, he is one among 5 'social media stars' nominee. The Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India, cited sources (medianews4u, style.yahoo) are unreliable, which suggest that, these awards are not significant. Neurofreak (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. The things that have changed since the last AfD are the Nickelodeon kids award and the Forbes India list. The award is of very doubtful notability, and being included on the Forbes India 30 under 30 list (which is not independently notable) doesn't in itself confer notability on an individual. Being interviewed on TV does not make a person notable either, unless there is independent coverage, but as it is, all sources in the article (including those that have been removed) are primary and/or not independent. Regarding the ITA Awards nomination, even if he were to win on Monday that means nothing – it's a "popular" category, not a notable award. This is an individual who makes money from adding covert advertising to his YouTube videos, and so it is probably important for him and his marketing people that he is as visible as possible on the Internet, to attract more customers. That's not Wikipedia's concern, however. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Dtt1. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig, which GNG sources are there? Please list them as the ones Dtt1 are being questioned. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is unfortunate that there are no WP:RS to reflect notability though the person is quite famous IRL. The three step methodology of the Forbes India magazine is a bit suspect as actual data is not provided to substantiate claims along with 'how were the experts chosen?' and 'what parameters did they use to identify the final 30?'. Further, voting in the second phase is prone to gaming and hence problematic. I'd have a similar set of objections to the Nick awards. Vikram Vincent 16:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would seem to meet WP:Entertainer, 23.5M subscribers is more than the population of most countries, certainly qualifies as "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followers, as pointed out in several policies and guidelines, are generally worthless since they can be purchased. WP:BLP REQUIRES independent reliable sourcing. Not some arbitrary number that is full of bot accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The fact that publicists like their clients to have Wikipedia articles is indeed not our concern, in that it has no bearing either way on notability. I have to question how "extensive" the review of the sources in the previous AfD was. One of the sources classified as "unknown/spam?" is in fact the Indian edition of Entrepreneur magazine, something that would have taken roughly 30 seconds to learn: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/346458. And whatever the methodology or rigor of the Forbes list, its result is nevertheless coverage in a magazine that consensus has deemed reliable per WP:RSP. (The previous AfD claims that the article is a Forbes contributor piece; it is not. It ran in the print edition.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the concerned source was kept under "uncategorized.." not under "unknown.." as you mentioned above. This is a link to a guest list of an Entrepreneur India event. The same wikpedia article still can be read here: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Ashish_A._Chanchlani. As far as I know, it is not considered as a reliable source for wikipedia entries. Neurofreak (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that a publication has ancillary promotional events, PR wings, or "X Under X" lists is not a referendum on the entire publication's notability or reliability. Forbes is a good example of a case where the extended universe of promotional/"guest" content is separate from the publication itself, and the Entrepreneur article appears to be similar (the note at the bottom states it, too, was published in the print edition). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither I commented on Entrepreneur notabilty/reliabilty nor I added the (entrepreneur.com) under "uncategorized/spam" in the previous AfD. I merely listed (entrepreneurindia.com) under uncategorized with a question mark, since the cited link was directing me to the speakers list of an event. Neurofreak (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomingstuff Did you even read my source analysis? Would you like to provide at least one independent source about this person? Because right now there's nothing that meets this criteria. Your assertion that my nom is simply because it's paid is ridiculous and untrue, considering I've now done three indepth analysis of the sources and not a single keep here has provided a single independent reliable source much less one that isn't paid for PR, which by definition doesn't contribute to notability. Further, Forbes is discussed EXTENSIVELY at RSP/RSN - 30 under 30 isn't a prestigious or notable award that establishes notability in and of itself, it's awarded to 600 people a year and there is nothing more that determines it other than a self-submission and luck of the draw. Further, he hasn't received significant coverage because of that itself. CUPIDICAE💕 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Gnomingstuff the previous AFD that discussed this forbes piece is a contributor piece as per the giant notice at the top and it is not in a print edition and the award itself is not from Cannes Film Festival, it just took place in Cannes and is a non notable award per our own determination. CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be talking about different Forbes pieces. The one I am referring to (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2021/ashish-chanchlani-going-viral-for-a-living/66315/1) is a piece that ran in the magazine. The author, Mansvini Kaushik, was employed by Forbes at the time of publication, and the piece ran in the print magazine ("This story appears in the 12 February, 2021 issue of Forbes India."). This is the Forbes category listed as reliable on WP:RSP. The awards are not the reason I bring this piece up, but the fact that the magazine decided to run a profile of him in the print edition. If you would like to argue that these are "paid-for PR" you will have to provide proof of that (and, by definition, it can't both be "paid-for PR" and "luck of the draw"). Similarly, the Enterpreneur piece is also a staff profile independent of this guy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that's what I am trying to explain which Gnomingstuff just did well and better than me, apart from Forbes and Enterpreneur there are others too like (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-others/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-family-coronavirus-covid-19-6565075/) this from Wikipedia:INDIANEXP which is again by their employee and also if we keep aside the fact that he won those notable awards we cant deny that these aren't at all paid stuff they are Notable.Dtt1^Talk 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Express is certainly quite reputed media organisation, but the article is not an independent profile of notable persons. It is a 2-liner news about his COVID-19 recovery, and the remaining article quote his twitter and instagram posts. Neurofreak (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes piece that Gnomingstuff refers to is independent in the sense that it does not appear to be commissioned by Chanchlani's PR people, but it is undeniably a primary source as it is an interview – and looking at the raw word count of that text, almost exactly half of it is direct quotes from Chanchlani. This was published because he is on the 30 under 30 list published by the same magazine, so not independent in that sense. (As an aside, the Forbes writer claims that the blogger award Chanchlani won was connected to the Cannes Film Festival, so not exactly a careful fact checker...)

As for the Entrepreneur article, the situation is identical. A piece based in its entirety on an interview with a lot of direct speech, published because Chanchlani was listed in their "35 under 35". To be clear, that kind of source does explicitly not count towards notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: Lacks WP:RSP and no in-depth coverage. In my opinion the subject in question does not qualify for a standalone page on Wikipedia.- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 15:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt undisclosed paid-for-spam with no evidence of notability. GSS ^💬 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt No indication of notability. The editor must be having a laugh at us. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.