Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishen Lakhiani

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 no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishen Lakhiani

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

Article is promotional and no notability could be established (author does not fulfill requirements for authors). His book isn't notable either (even if it was on a list of best-sellers for a week, since it does not fulfill main criteria for been considered a notable book ). Article was created by a single-purpose account Taniasafuan talk. Llaanngg (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Llaanngg Thanks for your input. However I didn't create my account just to publish this page, although indeed it was a poor attempt for a first-timer. I haven't put time into creating a second page (still trying to figure the platform out). I wanted to put more Malaysian personalities on the website and I started with Lakhiani given his contribution. I've revised the article to not sound promotional and removed some sources deemed unestablished by Wikipedia standards. Let me know if there's more that I missed or if the subject still doesn't meet the guidelines. – Taniasafuan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am afraid that even the new sources won't establish notability. Equally irrelevant is whether his services are bought by famous people, unless these people endorse or at least mention it. Here are needed sources analyzing him and his services, not just establishing that he's associated with notable people.Llaanngg (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest to keep this article :) Princesstowarrior (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning up the sources and it looks like he might pass notability guidelines. I'm slightly leery about the Forbes Contributor article, since they aren't considered to be staff and there have been several discussions where people have expressed concern that there is very little editing done on the FC articles, making them essentially blog posts of a certain type. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this one give off the impression that these writers are kind of on their own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least this article needs a thorough scrubbing because it's extremely promotional in tone. I'll do that after I finish going through the sources. Offhand this relies an awful lot on sources that are sort of questionable in tone. Some of the links are blogs (like the HuffPo blogs, which aren't seen as RS on Wikipedia) and others are in websites or outlets that offer marketing packages that include articles written about your business/product/etc. In the case of the awards, few of them seem notable so far (I'm still going through this section). Most business awards or honors are non-notable on Wikipedia because there are just so many of them. One of the awards claimed that it was given out by Inc., however a look at the article shows that it's a reader pick and not an award or anything that would really be of note on Wikipedia. The philosophy section I'm sort of editing as I go because out of all of the promotional sections, this one is the worst. This looks like there was some undisclosed paid editing going on here at one point in time and this is a fairly good example as to why you don't want to pay someone to edit a page about yourself - the article is so promotional that I'm mildly tempted to endorse a WP:TNT here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one is iffy. Hitting the NYT bestseller list does give notability, although the guideline for that was originally meant to cover the main fiction and non-fiction categories. There are also some good sources on here. However there are also ones that are kind of questionable, such as the Forbes link and the Digital News Asia stories. Speaker magazine is also mildly questionable since it's associated with a national organization, meaning that it's within their best interests to write about their members. Stuff like this also kind of make me lean towards it not being usable. This leaves the NYT list, the two BBC articles, and the Edge piece. That's kind of a little lean for NBIO, but it might be enough to squeak by. If it becomes promotional again or gets reverted back to its earlier promotional state, I'd endorse a TNT to discourage further promotional editing. Again, this is why trying to cram a bunch of promotional prose into an article usually backfires - not only does it make someone seem less notable, but it can end with the article getting deleted regardless of notability or the lack thereof. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: Princesstowarrior recently created account (with only this one contribution) confirms the extremely promotional intent of this article. Llaanngg (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There isn't a ton of stuff out there other than a slew of PR pieces and stuff in places that are iffy at best on Wikipedia. However there is just enough currently on the article to where Lakhiani would just barely squeak by notability guidelines, albeit by the skin of his teeth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: I agree that there are some hints of notability. However, I believe he falls somehow below the line separating notable from non-notable authors. Llaanngg (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: after Tokyogirl79's substantial improvement, I believe the article could be kept. ~~So I retract my delete and vote for keep.~~ Llaanngg (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry for this, but this is a good case of WP:TOOSOON. The person is an upcoming entrepreneur, but nowhere near notable even by local (Singapore/Malaysia) standards. (Or I would have found more hits in local media) This BBC interview (and reprinted by Asiaone) seems OK at first glance, but it offers little as to the subject's work. I'm not convinced by the book either as I do not see any secondary coverage of it. As for the company, it is a publishing company which the subject launched himself. From what I can see, they are trying to market themself. My guess is that the company may become notable in a few years, but the subject doesn't pass at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemongirl942, couldn't the approach here be just to leave it as a stub? Llaanngg (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's consensus to at least say there's still not enough of the needed substance, my own examinations found nothing confidently convincing and WorldCat lists only 6 libraries. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A business CV and a marginal ebook does not create notability. Engleham (talk) 19:21, 18 July 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.