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. After discounting the confirmed sockpuppets and SPAs, the consensus is clearly to delete, particularly considering the comments of those who examined the sources in depth. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shamit Khemka[edit]

Shamit Khemka (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)

nn entrepreneur. With rge exception of arrest for hate speech I don't see significant independent coverage in sources cited. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article actually contains no better signs of a better notable Wikipedia article, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong sourcing. No reason to delete. AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press releases and other PR stuff is not "strong sources". - üser:Altenmann >t 07:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are confusing News sites and reputable magazines with PR. - Mridu 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
      • No I am not. PR is peddled thru news sites and magazines. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think a PR has been peddled through all the news sites over the world including The New York Times, Business Standard, Times City, Zee News, The Telegraph, India Today and Forbes and over the years? Won't that make it a valid and solid news story?Mridu 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, and by the way, Mridusinha, you're an advertising SPA, and your keep seems more like promotion. The sources, with the exception of the hate speech incident (which, note, is the only thing referenced to the New York Times) are miserable. Esparami, your claim that "many agencies nowadays offer paid services to mess-up wikipedia entries" makes no sense. Why should they — who would pay for it? To the contrary, many agencies offer paid services to create and to puff up wikipedia entries such as this one. See also the apparently related, even more miserably sourced International Chandramauli Charitable Trust, which I've just prodded. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - multiple reliable sources with significant coverage are available for this person (other than the hate speech incident), for instance, [1], [2], [3], etc.. And a ton of trivial coverage on this person makes me think this person is indeed notable—UY Scuti ^Talk 21:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first ref is PR puffery without author, 2 and 3 is just citing Klemka, i.e, again promotion. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources are either trivial mentions, quoting the subject, or outright PR. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - looking at some of the sources, they check out! Bearian (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - nonnotable businessman. no significant coverage of the person beyond clearly promotional material. Claims to notability are leadership of several nonnotable orgs, including one with article I am about to file for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non notable ; the references in general have the unmistakable ring of press releases, and press releases they are, no matter where they were published. The nature of Indian newspapers at this point with respect to articles on business,entrepreneurs, professional workers, films, books,and all other topics susceptible to promotion makes them unreliable sources. If we are to include articles on subjects in these fields, we need sources which show clear accomplishments that would obviously justify an article. Such accomplishments are not present here--the size of his enterprises does no give rise to an assumption that they would be good sources, and his other activities likewise. I find this an extremely regrettable situation, but if there are no good sources for an area, what else can we do? DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have filleted the article of all but the sourced material; my edit summary sums it up. I think it is probably 'keepable' by now; but that of course is for the community to decide. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have struck my comment as am forced to agree with the above. My fillet knife was obviously knot sharp enough but a clincher is that it is untrustworthy. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Going over the sources in the article as of when I started this post (sources removed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi are marked with an ^), we have obvious PR pieces and advertisements which fail WP:RS ([5], [6], [7], [8]), affiliated sources which fail the "independent" part of WP:GNG ([9], [10], [11]^, [12]^), single mentions which fail the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG ([13], [14], [15], [16]^), sources on the hate speech arrest which fail WP:1E ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21]). That's it. Nothing else. Pretending for a moment this meets WP:GNG, there's still severe WP:UNDUE focus on his business when his presence in sources is more about the hate speech website. Whether or not any of his companies is notable does not matter.

@AusLondonder: please tell me how this is "strong sourcing." @Bearian: Please check out WP:PR and WP:1E; the few sources that approach "checking out" do not meet WP:GNG.

Also, besides the fact that the subject is not notable, the article was largely written by an editor who has acted in bad faith by lying about a clear conflict of interest and sockpuppeting. Given that conflict of interest, this article can only be intended as a promotional piece, which is not what this site is for. While any editor's behavior does not justify deletion, given that the article does not meet GNG, the behavior points toward WP:NUKEANDPAVE. If someone else finds legitimate sources that truly do indicate that the subject is notable, it's totally cool to bang out a stub two seconds after the page is deleted. But I do not think we should reward Mridusinha's greedy dishonesty by letting him host such a flimsily written puff-piece for himself or his boss (whatever his relationship is). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete They exist, they've had a career. So has everyone. Why is this one notable? Even the racism aspect seems too minor to put them in an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability up to our standards. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - there are good sources, but an argument has been made that WP:1E applies. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2016 (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.