Talk:Gaur Gopal Das

Strong COI/Paid concern

A well-constructed article, full infobox, lovely photo (the commons title of this photo is "GaurGopal Das delivering an inspirational talk."), and even set up on WikiQuotes, but references that are mostly primary and self-promotional = strong COI/Paid concern. The article was deleted in March 2018 but re-listed soon again with minor changes. No different from the other "evangelists" that throw up lots of you-tube/self-promotional web hits, but don't have a single quality WP:RS where they are the subject; and why an ordinary WP editor never wrote a BLP, as they are not notable in a WP sense. Britishfinance (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

2nd AfD

For the 2nd AfD, we had 6 independent WP editors, quoting policy having read the article (two in detail, and making material edits), opting for delete (even net of the remaining references given their primary/SPS nature). We had two independent editors asking Keep, and some (but not all) of their basis for Keep was shown by the Deletes to be wrong/unsupported. We also had two Keep SPAs with nothing to add except to support the two independent Keeps. We also had strong evidence of WP:PROMO/WP:COI here with false claims of "addressing UK Parliament" (which one of independent Keeps quoted), including quality photograph and well put together article etc (above). Perhaps this 2nd AfD showed he truly is a guru, and is protected by a higher power? Britishfinance (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment Support your explain: I want to change my Keep vote to Delete because recently i see COI issue in talk page, but too late... afd is already closed!!!! This guru is very promotional and have many promo support "paid" press release from india strong major media... that Amazing!!! Sry for my wrong support in previous Afd. Please make Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• It could be put up for the Deletion Review process, and given your change of vote, it would probably get re-listed at AfD for another 7 days. Ultimately, the COI/PROMO is so strong here (I didn't realise that he was set up on Wikiquotes, see the bottom of the article), that his SPAs are going to get him a WP BLP one way or the other. Britishfinance (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

He certainly has addressed the UK parliament. There are videos on YouTube too. Search Prabhu Gaur Gopal at house of commons. Polytope4D (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability

I think the user meets WP:Notability guidelines. This template must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankoswal (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Explain why? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This article meets the notability guidelines and hence warrants for an article. There is significant coverage in various national daily which is much more than just a trivial mention. Sankoswal (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Then show those references, because the current article, does't have them. Britishfinance (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added couple of references. Please check. Sankoswal (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Most of these references are from sources that are not appropriate for a WP:BLP (e.g. not WP:RS); not that restoring such sources to a WP:BLP can lead to a suspension of editing privilages. You need proper interviews by high quality independent WP:RS (e.g. WP:RS/P). That is the problem here, there don't seem to be any. Britishfinance (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean references from Times of India, The Hine, Live Mint, and The New Indian Express are not appropriate sources. Sankoswal (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The LiveMint article is not about him but someone else, and he gets only one sentance; I have moved it to its own sentance (it is borderline). The Indian Express is a "press release" for his new book, and should probably be deleted (I will leave to others). The original refs are still good but only borderline notability. What you need is a proper interview (not passing mention) or profile on him (not a press release) from a major newspaper/media outlet (not a blog, private college, speaking tour material etc). E.g. an article in The Hindu about Gaur as its main subject. If a BLP cannot make even a single main such piece (e.g. WP:SIGCOV) in a major RS, then why would Wikipedia have the subject as a BLP. That is the problem here. I think if this was brought to WP:AFD again, it would probably fail. I am happy to leave it as is, appropriately tagged, in the chance that he does reach the basic threshold for notability for a BLP (he is still young and his profile rising, so who knows)). At the moment, he is short of this. Britishfinance (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance What is your main issue with the subject? Why is there a tag that says the article is created by making undisclosed payments? Can anyone provide properly documented evidence? Is this the only article? He has delivered a speech at the British Parliament. He counsels many employees of IT corporations. One must have the open mindset to handle others' success. Polytope4D (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The subject is probably not notable (per above), and will probably have to return to AfD. Several blocked socks (e.g. PROMO editors) were associated with this BLP.

@Britishfinance I have added enough references and now the the article meets the notability guidelines. There is decent coverage in newspapers as well as on web which is much more than just a trivial mention. The WP:Notability template must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankoswal (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Want to improve the article and remove the tags - how can I?

Hi,

I am trying to rectify BLP pages which fall in my area of interest. Did some changes on other articles; but here I do not see any scope of correction in the content, especially when I try to correct the draft from 'neutrality point of view'. Can someone guide me here? Thanks! Highway Bird (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Highway Bird