Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. C. Solanki

P. C. Solanki

[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)

No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are mix of interviews and routine annoucements to with the cases. scope_creep^Talk 08:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of mentions, but no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Earlier PROD-nominations were based on failing to find sources, which the re-write shows is objectively untrue. The AfD is now proposed mainly on WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:SIGCOV, which again reflect lack of WP:BEFORE and an appeal to policy (without specific discussion) that I address below. For instance, for user User talk:Onel5969, who voted above and originally nom. for PROD, several issues regarding lack of due diligence in PROD/AfD have consistently been raised on their talk page that concern me.

WP:RS—This is trivially untrue. Subject of the article is literally the headline of independent and published news from several news organizations such as The Economics Times, Deccan Chronicle, and The Quint. No significant research is needed to create a profile of the topic from these articles and it's more than a passing mention (or routine announcement) as the subject was the primary advocate of mult-year high-profile trial (see: Asaram for defendents profile and stature). This also satisfies, in my opinion, reliable, independent, and sources criterion of WP:GNG.
WP:SIGCOV—Additional citations within the article, where the subject is not the main topic directly, but critical part of the story support significant coverage, such as the coverage in the Caravan magazine, The Print articles. These may include interviews but are not the basis of the subjects profile. Further, coverage spans several years (2013-2023) indicating WP:SUSTAINED.
WP:BIO—The impact of trial brought by the subject as lead counsel is highly notable (as stated above) and their portrayal in a notable bollywood film (Sirf Ek Bandaa Kaafi Hai). — Komodo (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in light of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations, are the article's sources reliable? If so, I'd say "keep". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: There is enough to indicate notability. There are multiple non-NEWSINDIAORG sources that have provided significant coverage to Solanki. It includes this and this. I would also say Keep. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B., What are your concerns regarding the reliability of the sourcing ? Sohom (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know there can be problems with Indian news sources. I’m unsure which to trust - that’s why I’ve asked for help. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu The Print and Caravan Magazine would be the most reliable, Anything associated with the Times group is up for debate imo. However, given the subject matter, I doubt money changed hands except maybe to promote the film (I'm neutral about the Deccan Chronicle, tho I've seen bad coverage from themselves at times). Sohom (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't think this article passes muster purely from a WP:BLP1E point of view. If we zoom out for a second and try to look at to the sources, we see that every single source mentions the individual in the context of the much more notable Asaram Bapu case. The man is known for a singular thing, and that is as the attorney of the godman case, something that can be sumarized in the parent article.

The article in it's current state has a total of 4 sentences that are unrelated to his involvement in the case, none of which have been independently reported on (outside of the context of the other case) or are notable if stood on their own merit. As a result, I support deletion, even without considering the reliability of the sources involved (some of which like the economic times can be of dubious reliability at times -- but probably aren't in this context). Sohom (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Soham! On reviewing the WP:BLP1E conditions, to my reading, it doesn't appear that all three conditions are met. Specially, for condition three, the event is siginificant and the subjects role in it is well documented. Even if bulk of the notability comes from that event, and BLP1E is a concern, does it directly merit a deletion? If considering a merge, it is hard to place this topic in Asaram but I am not entirely against it as a seconday outcome. Let me know if my understanding of these guidelines are incomplete. Cheers! — WeWake (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see another reference has been added which again is tangenital to the mans career rather than the man himself, essentially a passing mention. I don't think you can build a case for WP:BLP1E and didn't think so when I opened the Afd but I'm more sure now than then, that he is non-notable in this instance. scope_creep^Talk 04:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is to support the specific statement re: verifiability. There are existing sources addressing their career. Cheers! WeWake (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]