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. A pile of canvassed SPA votes saying "He's notable" clearly doesn't cut it. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Kedia

[edit]
Vikas Kedia (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)

Article arrived here via contested WP:PROD. Article concerns a tech entrepreneur. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the guidelines of WP:ANYBIO. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our reasons to vote for a definite keep are:

We have been debating if we should ask the senior members of the debtcc community to come and cast individual votes. The wikipedia guidelines says that the number of votes do not count but the reasoning accompanying the votes count. So for the time being we have decided not to ask the senior members of the community to cast individual votes but rather we are letting our opinion be known in collective through me as the spokesperson. Paulmergel (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)— Paulmergel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Asking for others to come vote your way is called WP:CANVASSING and you should not do it. Re: the new sources, the only ones that might count are the Times of India and Santa Cruz Sentinal articles. But both appear to be reporting local news of passing interest. The former reports the subject was to attend a competition as a student but does not report what happened and whether he won. (Apparently, he did not.) The second reports that he was starting a website, hardly a remarkable event. These are run-of-the-mill local news stories and fall short of what it takes to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we are debating here if it meets the guidelines. Arguments would be more persuading if they include evidence rather than just an assertion. I would point out that I certainly "get debt free" and in fact live in the same county as mentioned in the source where the web site was based in 2004 (although the current web site claims the company is "based in Nevada" and the person's LinkedIn page says Chicago?). I would say almost everyone I know also wants to "get debt free" too, but none of us have ever heard of this person. The claim that it is "the largest community" of such people is only asserted by itself, twice. We can assume good faith that it thinks this claim is true, but without any independent source, all the article should say is that the web site "says it is the largest community...". I did look at the "US Observer" and was amused: hardly a reliable and unbiased source. Certainly confidential term sheets are not verifiable. I would also observe that the web site links to this Wikipedia article as part of its self-promotion. The article conveniently leaves out how the web site is funded. In fine print it says that the information about people who register is sold. Also for what it is worth, here is one review, albeit biased in its own way. There have been a few (presumably minor) complaints at the BBB. This could very well be a noble group, but until it or the other ventures started by the subject get some independent coverage, maybe it could be userfied. Also ran across this site which also links to the Wikipedia article in its self-promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that this article is for self-promotion but anyway, the subject is notable per coverage (see how media is talking about him). We can meet in some other arguments but that means article should be improved, not deleted. What do you think ? --Wikifan115 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan115, you've asserted the subject is notable based on guidelines and coverage but the problem is that you haven't identified either the sources or the provisions of the guidelines you rely on to make that claim. So far as I can tell, there are no sources to establish notability that might satisfy any of the guidelines, so saying it's there somewhere but not identifying where really isn't very helpful. Msnicki (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could find them if you had searched. Here are some secondary sources talking about Vikas Kedia :
  • Sorry, but I think only MoneyControl is a good source from the above links. But 2 issues with that link: (a) it does not seem to be news, rather just a press release; (b) is that really this same Vikas Kedia? It could be another person with the same name. - Aurorion (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another pass through the article and it's not so clear cut as I first thought. The subject of the article is discussed in a couple of of solid reliable sources as an exemplar of the kind of entrepreneur that India should be cultivating: the story of him turning down a (moderately) high-paying job to start his own business is repeated in most of the sources I'm seeing. However, the best sources are often just a single paragraph. I'm not seeing the depth or breadth of coverage that would justify an article. So for now I'll keep my delete !vote and file this under WP:TOOSOON. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think this article should be deleted as this man is quite notable. I have heard of his business as well as his charity work. To me, this article seems as if it deserves to be om Wikipedia :) AzzuriItalia (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC) — AzzuriItalia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that AzzuriItalia (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep - After reading the entire discussion I think this article should be kept for updation and should be improved. I think this man is quite notable. I found one evidence about the article in "Times of India". Though it is equivalent to "Los Angeles Times" or "New York Times" or "The Guardian" yet as per Wikipedia notability guidelines only one reference won't work. The article need a handful of references from "third-party" or "independent sources" so that one can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.A lot of improvement required. Royal Heart 08:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royale.heart (talk • contribs) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Royale.heart (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Keep Vikas Kedia is a notable person and his article should go live. Wiki admins should mark him as notable. He has helped many people get out of debt. His work is notable and could be easily seen in this reference of Times of India. Selling his idea to Indian Mafia in Silicon Valley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffsmile (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Geoffsmile (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [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.
More