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. Sandstein 12:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Chaudhary (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)

I think this article doesn't qualify for an article and doesn't have enough references. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - the Techradar source suggests that he was a headliner of the event they're actually writing about, which might lend itself to notability, but there don't seem to be any other useful reliable sources at all. Ninth-most-viewed Hindi tech vlogger also doesn't seem all that noteworthy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After reading the nom's comment, noting that the number of references currently cited on any article does not determine notability; indeed, this a a key part of Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I believe that WP:GNG is met due to a wide range of adequate sources that could be cited in the article. Many are not of the best quality or are listings, but per no fixed amount of sources are required for any article. One is a standard listing article [1] (in itself, not a quality source) that provides a descent claim to significance for TechnicalGuruji (Chuaudhary's YouTube channel). Another is an article from the Economic Times [2] which, while also fairly short, specifically notes Technical Guruji as one of two channels that YouTube has focused their advertising campaign around. One of the better sources [3] that could be added to the article is an interview (published in Mint (newspaper)) in which the head of entertainment for YouTube India makes multiple mentions of Technical Guruji; quoting "Also, in a country we are now buying so many gadgets, that channels like Technical Guruji have become a reference point for consumers and are a vital part of the consumer’s journey as they start to make a purchase." That is fairly clearly enough to entertain the possibility of a SIGCOV argument. Also working the significance angle, here is a (albeit, a possible trivial mention) brief article in which the Times of India reports on Paramarsh announcement that Gaurav Chaudhary, otherwise known as ‘technical guruji’, is being invited to that year's event. I will also note that, due to Technical Guruji being the name of Chaudary's famous YouTube channel, many more search results can be found using the channel's name as opposed to his own. A WP:BEFORE should be conducted for both names, just in case.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment also noting that the "first" AfD listed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Chaudhary) is in regards to an actor of the same name.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why wasn't this article deleted? Aggarwala2727 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the first AfD was filed in regards to an article about a completely different individual. They just happen to have the same name.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment no credible sources but strong following (1 Million+ subscribers at youtube).

Exploreandwrite (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He has overall 10 million-plus subscribers. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are not an overly large amount of credible sources, but there are a few as listed above. The Mint Interview [4] with YouTube India's spokesperson is credible, as is the Economic times article. Note that only one reliable, verifiable source is needed to establish the notability of the subject; all else is cleanup and not a reason for deletion per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – With over 9.7 million subscribers to Technical Guruji, his channel is the most subscribed Hindi tech channel, and stands at the 5th position among all tech channels, per the cited source of the article. His channel also seems to be the most viewed Hindi tech channel. So he is obviously popular, but as far as WP notability is concerned, it seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. BTW, there is a short biography of him at the Amazon, but we don't know regarding the quality of that kindle edition. In any case, that would count as a single in-depth source. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: would you be willing to comment on the sources I cited in my Keep vote? They are not the best, to be sure, but I think they at least establish the notability of the subject.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6, there is no doubt that the reliable sources cited by you show that his videos are making impact on the Hindi-speaking masses, and his large number of subscribers show that he is popular. So he is 'notable' in that sense. But this project's notability requires healthy amount of reliable & independent coverage in multiple sources, so that we can have an NPOV-based standalone article. As I mentioned earlier, there is one potential in-depth source, but I am unable to locate multiple in-depth sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (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.