Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhash Charan

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Charan

[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)

Clearly fails WP:GNG. He is the owner of a non-notable educational institution. Additionally, the books he wrote aren't notable. The article mostly promotes his institution and courses, and all of the sources given are sponsored posts. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 06:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Education, India, and Rajasthan. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 06:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are multiple news sources in the article covering the subject, the coaching and the startup. "and all of the sources given are sponsored posts" is incorrect. Krayon95 (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all sources have disclaimers, and all this content is distributed by ANI/PNN to all other news websites. ANI/PNN is a leading PR and news distribution company in India. Tomorrow, I will post a detailed review of all sources. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, please draftify, so can improve later. Krayon95 (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this subject does not adhere to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so there is no valid reason to consider it for draftification. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 11:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable, and as per nom. User4edits (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non of the sources given show notability. I've given a detailed analysis of the sources below -- Sohom (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources

- gkhub.in gkhub.in is not a reliable/idependant source

- aninews.in This is press release propagated via ANI News, not indepedent coverage.

- bhaskar.com 1 This is again a press release, not independant

- businessworld.in Same ANI press release/PR as aninews.in, not independant

- balotratimes.com I have never come across balotratimes.com, however, reading through this article first few does not inspire confidence in its impartiality, I would assume this is some sort of content written by somebody associated with (a pupil of) the subject

- bhaskar.com 2 These are a bunch of press releases talking about donations/good deeds during the COVID-19 times, I don't see a mention of the subject?

-timeofindia.com There is one fleeting mention of the platform created by the subject, I don't see how this is indepedent significant coverage.

- economictimes.indiatimes.com This doesn't seem to about the subject itself (It is behind a paywall so I cannot read all of the article)

- mid-day.com mid-day.com is unreliable, and the story is clearly labelled "partnered content", definitely not independant

- vccircle.com I don't think vccircle.com is a reliable outlet in this context. Also, this does read a lot like company PR, since it heavily leans on "the company says so" instead of relying on their own editorial voice "The company did this"

- expresscomputer.in This is also a press release, not independant coverage

- cnbctv18.com This article is mostly a list of press releases from various companies.

- bhaskar.com 3 This is not related to the subject at all

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.