Talk:Karan Gupta

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Lingveno (talk · contribs) has been paid by Karan Gupta.

Could someone do some secondary research and clean-up on this page? I've written it myself and do not have a personal relationship with the subject, but it appears that other contributions would help add neutrality to the page. Or if anyone has any ideas on how to make it more neutral, please direct me in the right direction. Rmjjwiki (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that this article appears to be the result of paid editing, and therefore needs to be independently reviewed. Wikipedia does permit paid editing, with the proviso that the contractor discloses their relationship with the client, but due to problems with conflicts of interest it is necessary that those articles be checked. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the article for neutrality and have verified the sources. This article is neutral and factually correct. I have done some digging and seen the contributions of some of the editors of this page and none appear to be linked to the subject matter being discussed. Hence, I am deleting the COI tag. If anyone can give more suggestions to improve neutrality, I am all ears.

Unfortunately, a random anonymous IP cannot be seen as necessarily independent. This article as clearly created through paid editing, so will need to be independently evaluated by someone unconnected to the subject. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if Bilby would be more specific on how to make the article more neutral. Both comments addressing this issue have asked for suggestions on how improve the article's neutrality, but nothing specific has been suggested other than independent evaluation. Since my work here is considered a COI (which it is not), I can't make this evaluation. Therefore, I would be grateful if an independent evaluation- even from Bilby- would take place to solve this issue.174.30.247.255 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: I have removed the primary sources and added notable references including Bloomberg TV's direct website link about the subject matter. Please tell me what I can do to satisfactorily remove your tags.Truth Prevails 21:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Adam9007 can you help me understand what changes I need to make to remove @Bilby: tags? Truth Prevails 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC) @Bilby: Yes, COI, Notability, Primary sources. Forgive me, if 'tag' is not the right word.[reply]

The problem with the primary sources is that this covers more than just direct links to Gupta's website. Articles written by him, press releases, interviews where we rely on quotes by him - all of these are primary sources. It isn't enough just to remove one or two of these, but instead we need to rely as much as possible on secondary, independent sources writing about Gupta. In regard to notability, that second issue also applies. What we are looking for is sufficient secondary sources about him, rather than by him or merely quoting him. This issue is not that Gupta isn't a leader in his field or an excellent source on areas of his expertise, but that we need material that is about him, personally, rather than examples where is is asked to provide his expertise. - Bilby (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: Thank you for the explanation. I have cleaned the article and removed primary sources and added in secondary notable sources. Please let me know if I can remove the tags. @Wikibaji: Any reason why you have reverted back to the old version of this page? The current version is more neutral and does not rely on primary sources - you cannot list Gupta's own website as a reference. I have edited and moved the page back to it's latest version.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Mr. Gupta is a credible entrepreneur and member of his community, with credible sources included in the page pertaining to his history and work. I have written and contributed to Wikipedia articles such as this in the past and have never had to contest a speedy deletion in such short order. I suspect it's because Mr. Gupta is from another country. If it's advisable to request this page be moved to Wikipedia in India, please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjjwiki (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This article should not be deleted for lack of notability - If we consider the three tests of notability - Significant Coverage, Reliable Sources and Independent Sources, the article passes all three tests. The subject matter, in this case, Karan Gupta, has been written about in hundreds of websites and newspapers of national and international importance. The references made are not in passing but instead about the entire subject matter. All the sources are verifiable as well. Hence, I recommend a Strong Keep for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulshahx99 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article passes A7 as it is of a significant and important topic about a person who is a social activist who has been adequately written about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.150.201 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this is interesting, the tag was removed shortly after it was placed, and prior to Rmjjwiki's response. If the article is to be deleted, the community ill need to consider that through a separate discussion at a later date. You do not need to defend it here. - Bilby (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]