Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain

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 keep. Withdrawn; consensus would be to keep even if the nominator had not withdrawn -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Jain

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

Lack of Notability according to several reasons top of which are WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS . See talk page for full discussion. Nightseeder (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also created an event page, that I think is more appropriate for this subject here --Nightseeder (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. The article has multiple, independent, reliable sources documenting multiple events in Jain's life that have significant coverage in those sources. Additional such sources have been provided on the article talk page for expansion. This is detailed in article talk page. None of the sources have been contested by anyone. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Most of the information in this article really belongs on the company articles for InfoSpace, Intelius or Freei. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm glad that we have another editor who takes the perspective that Jain is notable for multiple events. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, the sources in the biography are credible, but they are in relation to one event (part of the larger deflation of the dot-com bubble) and many of the articles are not even about this person. Per my reading of WP:BIO1E, this person has news coverage for a single event and is not notable otherwise. If the article were expanded to a proper biography, I would vote keep despite the lack of notability, but given that there is insufficient coverage of the subject for more than a resume, I see no compelling reason for this article to exist. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— ValkyrieOfOdin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article documents numerous notable events without anyone contesting even one of the sources. How do you rectify your perspective with the facts of the situation (the multiple, uncontested sources documenting multiple, notable events). --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my perspective is that there are not "numerous notable events" in the article and that is what I dispute, not the sources. Probably if you articulate what events are notable and why you see them as such, it would be helpful to the debate. There appears to be one event (the Infospace event) ... and one event, even with news coverage, is not generally sufficient, per my reading of the guidelines. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you haven't noticed where I did exactly that and linked to it in my initial comment to this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. That discussion seemed inconclusive, but you've been active on his page for a long time, so I'm sure you have a much clearer view of why this article needs to exist. I bow to your seniority, only suggesting that if it stays, it is made into a proper bio rather than a resume. As it stands, the guy founded companies, made money, lost money, got sued, payed money ... I'm finding myself yawning, wondering who cares. All I'm advocating is that the meat of why he did it, who he is- all the interesting bits that aren't in there- are included in the article so it's engaging and informative. There's no need for a counter-point here, this is only my opinion and I'm not suggesting my opinion is sufficient reason to keep or delete. Good luck and I'm interested to see how this process works. ;) ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are an encyclopedia, not a psychological biography or an action film. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep a few days ago on my initial view of the article, I was pretty sure it was a "delete" under 1BPE and UNDUE. But since then the article has been cleaned up a lot and there appear to be enough (perhaps passing) mentions about enough different events over a sustained period of time to meet WP:N. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not bothered to identify which sources contain significant coverage on Jain which meet WP:BASIC vs those that do not because no one has bothered to comment on any of the sources at all. However, just a quick skim shows that Red Herring(1997), Sunday Business (2000) both contain significant coverage while predating Jain's business and legal problems at InfoSpace. Additional such sources are listed on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Naveen Jain has been the founder or prime mover of companies on which Wikipedia has articles, such as InfoSpace and Intelius. (InfoSpace easily passes WP:CORP as a company traded on NASDAQ). At one point Jain was described as a person with a net worth of over two billion dollars. Jain is still in the news, as this August 10 report from the web site of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer indicates. A lot of the press coverage of Naveen Jain has been negative, which you can double-check by looking at the references in our article. At one point there seemed to be a serious effort to 'beautify' the Jain article involving multiple accounts and IPs. This activity was discussed at the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard in January, 2008. One of the IPs trying to remove critical references from the article was shown by Whois to be registered to Naveen Jain himself. I suppose a person who has negative press coverage would like to see it kept out of view, so I was somewhat troubled to see this AfD nomination, and felt nervous that Jain might still be trying to control his own coverage. This is not intended as a criticism of anyone involved in this debate, and Wikipedia is not required to have an article on everyone in the world who the press has not been happy with. Nonetheless, the InfoSpace and Intelius dramas have drawn enough attention and evoked enough press response to formally justify us treating this subject. This is a person who was required by a court to pay a fine of over 100 million dollars! Please explain to me why that's so minor that WP should not cover it. Of course we need to be as neutral as possible in reflecting what has been reported. It would be reasonable for the article to be expanded to a more complete biography, using the references that have lately been added to the talk page. Those references establish that this expansion could be done by anyone willing to spend the time. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This Article has no biographical value and should be deleted. We would never allow an Article on 'Barack Obama' to be on Wikipedia just from Fox News. Similarly, we shouldn't allow this article to exist to be written based on single event as described by a biased reporter with no comment from the other side. AlexKel (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— AlexKel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - I agree with AlexKel that this article is more f a resume than biographical information for this person. This article is also full of inaccuracies. I didn't find in the referenced article where it says that Jain invested 5 Million in Freei and I don't event nderstand why this information belongs on the perrson's biography. PaulJudson (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— PaulJudson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - obviously notable and well-sourced, as pointed out by User:Ronz. The suggestion above that this is a single event reported on by a single biased reporter is simply wrong; a quick cruise through Google News for Naveen Jain will show many pertinent articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, and others. --CliffC (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew request - Seeing as the vote so far (not counting the Blatant COI and SPA) are 4 Keep and 2 Delete (counting myself) one of which seems to be a "soft" (ValkyrieOfOdin's), I guess I will withdrew my AfD proposal (though I still stand by the asserthion that if you fold the relevent information to their respective company article page (InfoSpace, Intelliuse and such) what is left is of little value, if there is a need to discuss this event in a singel articl , then an article on the event will suit it better (as I have tried to do, but it got deleted since it was considered an attack article, which under the same assertions made for that one, I can say the same about the Naveen article). --Nightseeder^(Chat). 23:39, 26 August 2010 (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.