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 no consensus. Both sides have been talking in generalities without enough discussion of specific sources. MRRaja001 and RebeccaGreen mentioned the existence of additional news articles but failed to present any actual links. Meanwhile the delete side has simply asserted lack of WP:SIGCOV even though there are several trustworthy news websites in the article already which they have not refuted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur Gopal Das[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Gaur Gopal Das (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)

This article was AfD'ed in March 2018 and I don't see much evidence that much as changed since then. The article itself is very promotional with lots of references that would not meet WP:RS. Britishfinance (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe keenly there are more than 15 to 20 References from various Newspapers and few from the University websites. There is no reason to delete the article. MRRaja001 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PROMO lacking support for notability. Created TOOSOON after first AfD, and with no lessons learned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (Author of article) lacking support for notability? The Hindu, Times of India, Gulf News, Republic World, Muscat Daily all these are most famous new papers, which i think is enough for references. 1. TEDx talk at IIM Ranchi 2. Was invited for 3-day techfest along with Dalai Lama at IIT Bombay, where 7,000 students took part 3.speeches at leading companies in the world.MRRaja001 (talk) 9:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. No, those are not signs of notability. Motivational speakers give motivational speeches, it's how why they have that job title. See the previous AfD discussion for more about this. And having promotional press releases published in a notable paper also doesn't confer notability. --bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have started cleaning up some of the most promotional text, and have removed several sources that were entirely promotional or else trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. There is one thing that has changed since the previous AfD, and that is the fact that he has received a honorary doctorate - the problem is that I'm not quite sure of the status of such doctorates in India. In Sweden, it would definitely be a sign of notability but I have come to understand that at some universities in e.g. the USA the requirements for a honoris causa doctorate can be extremely flimsy. Does anybody know the situation in India? --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Bonadea: Nice job. Little now giving notability. The university in question is a private college, the MIT - World Peace University (we should use that title - or was it a sub-group?), which is unknown to me. Again, most people getting honorary doctorates in my part of the world have lots of good quality RS on their notability – E.g. the honorary doctorate is not needed to establish notability, as the figure is usually highly notable, which is why they get the HD. Britishfinance (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, probably. I see a lot of coverage of his talks - not press releases, but reports with bylines in multiple, reliable, independent newspapers, including the Times of India - coverage which is not currently in the article. The previous AfD ran for only one week, and had 2 delete votes (including the Nom), and one keep, and there is very little discussion in it, and none that is relevant to the question of significant coverage of his talks (rather than reliable sources for whether he spoke in the UK parliament and Google head office). I would say that he meets WP:BASIC, and perhaps WP:AUTHOR #3. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No single RS covered his Google talk; the main ref is his facebook page? [1]. Speaking in a company does not make you interently notable. I am sure there are many priests etc. who have given talks in companies. It does not make them notable, and particularly so with the body of RS decides not to report on the talk (which is why WPs reliles on GNG at it's core).

He did not deliver "a talk to the UK Parliment". There is a single reference to him being "in" the UK Parliment on - again - facebook pages [2]. If you search the official "Parliment.UK" site [3], there is nothing on Gaur Gopal Das. Maybe he spoke to a few MPs in a small room, but the essence of this is a fake claim.

I can't find a single article on the subject in a material RS. No independent bio article, no independent book on him, no appearance on a main tv network, no chapter in an independent book. Nothing. Only passing references to his talks/PR campaigns to promote himself as a guru.

In addition, there is not even a "contrived" case that he meets as NAUTHOR – unless we assume that anybody who writes their own book which is discussed in non-RS (e.g. fans, his blogs etc.), is now a valid BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after some careful consideration. His talks are not notable (again I refer to my rationale for that in the previous AfD - I know that had very low participation but it seems like a waste of time to repeat my arguments, which are identical). There is no significant coverage in independent sources. And I've arrived at the opinion that the honorary doctorate doesn't confer notability on its own given the fact that the awarding institution is not allowed to call itself a university, and as Britishfinance points out, in almost all cases where a honoris causa doctorate is notable, the person receiving it was already notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG, not a notable subject. Skirts⁸⁹ 20:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree per RebeccaGreen. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But she didn't list any sources? AfD only works if people list RS so they can be debated. GNG is not about proving "existance", it is about "notability", and in that regard requires "several significant independent RS". At the moment, we don't even have one. Otherwise, it is just a vote (which it is not meant to be). Britishfinance (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a google news search shows some reliable significant coverage in Hindi major newpapers, just that the majority are Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hninthuzar (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A google news search shows a lot of primary references from his sources/name checking him. There is not a single significant material RS "on him" (of which he is the subject), which is why none of the keep votes have produced any (despite other editors going through in detail above). All we get are general statements. Britishfinance (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: What's going on with deleting it. You know it's going to be harder to know if been deleted. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A lot of poppycock going on in this article. Wikipedia is not for advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:BASIC / WP:AUTHOR. --K.e.coffman ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]—]) 22:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he meet WP:AUTHOR #3 and speech in the UK parliament and Google head office. promo text are already removed by other editor. Ratherfel (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How does he meet WP:NAUTHOR #3? That requires rather a lot more than simply publishing a book. --bonadea contributions talk 06:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you see Rebecca's cmt. Ratherfel (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be very helpful if you clarified what you mean. What has he authored that constitutes a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? --bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @69.160.30.58: @Ratherfel: Because you just joined Wikipedia today, and your first edit is to make a proper formed entry on the AfD section (and know how to substitite "Ratherfel" for your IP-address in signatures), you may not realise that AfD is not a vote (see banner above). You must provide arguements that meet WP:PNG. You should also be aware of WP:SOCK. We have a subject (and his followers) who are trying to use Wikipedia to improve his notability (because he has not been the subject of any significant WP:RS as a subject). However, in Wikipedia, is it the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Closer. Please read the above carefully. Any claim of notability that this charachter has (as per the first AfD) is either faked (that he "addressed the UK parliment"), or not from an WP:RS (there are plenlty of follower blogs/facebook junk), or not relevant to WP notability (e.g. giving a talk to a group in Google, which no RS reported on). There is a WP:SOCK element here and "Keep" votes based on ILIKEIT (or contrived interpritations of NAUTHOR) vs. WP:PAG. BLPs with a strong COI/PROMO aspect should not be "contrived" cases. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2019 (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.