Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvish Yadav (3rd nomination)

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

His win in a reality show (Bigg Boss OTT 2) and some online controversies have received temporary media attention, but these do not amount to the kind of sustained, independent coverage needed to demonstrate long-term wiki article. The article also leans promotional in tone, with excessive detail on YouTube milestones and trivial career facts, which goes against WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Being internet famous is not inherently equivalent to being notable by Wiki. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Music, India, and Haryana. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the nominatior that his career is smaller than the controversy section. And doesn’t pass notability. But the given sources suggest he received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources which compound to Wp:GNG. I believe the sources should be checked carefully and evaluated if they really are reliable sources or just puff pieces and. wp:CHURNALISM and Wp:QUESTIONABLE. Zuck28 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon observing this article, I'm not confident about the article blog-style reporting & entertainment coverage lacking editorial oversight. Well, per WP:NYOUTUBER, mere social media popularity and viral fame is insufficient. Notability come from lasting, third-party recognition in RS which is absent here. This is a clear case of WP:NOTPROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and comment above. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is (unfortunately) a close call because he has received a fair amount of media coverage but for all the wrong reasons. As said by folks above, more significant coverage of his "career" is needed per WP:NYOUTUBER, while the reports he received for various acts of shameless self-promotional desperation are numerous but largely WP:CHURNALISM. Gotta admit that he knows how to get fleeting mentions of his name in the tabloids though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article about his youtube channels and winning an Indian version of Big Brother. Editors probably sympathetic to him have repeatedly tried to remove the controversy section so I suspect the deletion of this article would aid that censorship attempt, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG. The amount of coverage is too huge to justify even the AfD, let alone deleting the article. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Many reliable sources have provided him significant coverage. International sources like The Independent have also covered him.[1] I am totally surprised over this AfD. Agletarang (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]