Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pranav Adani

Pranav Adani

[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)

Non-notable individual. Sources are promotional and cited to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Only known for being a relative of Gautam Adani. See WP:INHERITED. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about business in India requires better quality sourcing. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:BEFORE, subject passes WP:BASIC. And this article has persisted since 2018. AFD Nomination seems intentional or any paid agenda. B-Factor (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC states- "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." — So far not a single source has been provided that offers significant coverage to the subject and doesn't fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which raises concerns as to whether the supposed coverage is even independent. Articles are not considered notable only because they have existed for some time on Wikipedia. Your last sentence is a serious aspersion without any basis. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITED. Nothing shows he is notable outside his relationship with Gautam Adani. Lorstaking (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject holds multiple notable positions in notable organizations, and the sources are reliable enough. Citations can be implemented.Lalu Faizy (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holding positions in notable organisations does not make one notable by association, see WP:INHERITED. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources India.com, Business Standard, DD, DNA India, Business Today Fugoja (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are very poor sources for establishing notability, as all of them are Indian news organisations, which are known to release paid articles without any disclosure, as outlined in WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

Your first source is sourced to india.com which is written in a promotional language. Same thing with the second source, your third source is only a DD footage of his speech at Uttrakhand GIS 2023, your fourth source also appears to be a paid article given the promotional tone, and your fifth source is only a transcript of the speech he made at GIS 2023. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERITED. None of the references above establish WP:GNG. Dympies (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is live since 2018, and the article has maintained a certain level of notability over time. Since it's creation, the article has been developed with reliable sources, and although it may have room for improvement, its longevity demonstrates to met WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE when it was initially published. Regemoso (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that have existed for far longer than this get deleted regularly at AfD, keeping an article only because it has existed for some time has no basis in policy. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have a possible WP:ATD here? A redirect to Gautam Adani? Or would that be irrelevant to that article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close as No Consensus. I think its time to close this as WP:NOCONSENSUS. The problem with the whole WP:NEWSORGINDIA argument is one is never sure whether the coverage is paid or independent, and it essentially means that anybody living India who draws national but not international news coverage might become the target of such an AFD. To my mind, this kind of reasoning is a shot in the dark because it could be legit, and it might not be. What is certainly does is reinforce WP:SYSTEMICBIAS against article on Indian people which is problematic. With people on both sides of the issue, and with no definite proof that the coverage isn't independent I'm not seeing a strong consensus to delete at this time.4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. There isn't one source that has significantly provided coverage to this person. The sources only give him little importance because they are discussing Gautam Adani. CharlesWain (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undoubtedly fails WP:GNG. Not opposed to creating a redirect. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As relative of a notable Gautam Adani does not make the subject notable. WP:INHERITED. Not opposed to Redirect. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak Keep as per the following three reliable references; South China Morning Post, Financial Express, and Business Standard. If there are more such citations, the page could meet the criteria outlined in the Heymann Standard. However, we should keep in mind that WP:THREE and WP:HEY are essays, not an established guidelines. Charlie (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlieMehta: South China Morning Post source is discussing Gautam Adani and only giving short coverage to Pranav Adani based on his familial relationship and the benefits that come with it (positions in his companies). The Business Standard is an Indian news organisation and the source is written in promotional tone, it also says "Pranav Adani, Managing Director, Agro and Oil & Gas, Adani Group" at the very bottom of the page which is very unusual and the Financial Express source only has a generic byline and same promotional tone, therefore both would fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA as likely sponsored articles. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the source analysis provided by Ratnahastin. Charlie (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In terms of notability, the subject passes WP:GNG as there is significant coverage Bloomberg, DNA, India.com. Regarding the concern about promotional sources, Indian media employs such a style to attract readers to drive traffic, which can sometimes come across as promotional. The subject has the potential for improvement rather than deletion. Tedamime (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
Except for Bloomberg report (which concerns Adani's slum rehabilitation program), all three of the sources have been addressed above. If you think Indian media does not engage in undisclosed paid releases, then you should get such a consensus on RSN. - Ratnahastin (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails WP:N. Sources do not discuss his biography. The above hand-waves about notability are dubious. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- There is no definitive proof that the coverage is not independent. Unless clear evidence is provided to discredit the sources as unreliable or paid. The article appears to meet WP:BASIC, as it has received significant coverage in multiple sources. Not found any strong consensus for deletion. Avishek Pilot (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORGINDIA is very clear on what to consider when assuming an article to be a sponsored content. "Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others" Almost all the presented sources have one or all of the aforementioned issues. This is also the first AFD you have participated in, like many of the "keep" votes above, I wonder what's going on.- Ratnahastin (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:AVOIDYOU. Avishek Pilot (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Adani family is known for its bad history with Wikipedia Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-20/Disinformation report which involved socking and paid editing spanning a decade, even this article has a shady history. This AFD is also seeing a wave of new users that have never participated in deletion nominations before, coming here to vote "keep". See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/B-Factor Please take this into consideration when closing. Thanks. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to an old saying, for every successful person, there are a number of people who hate them for no reason. The same is true in this case with the Adani family. Without a question, Adani Group is the most famous business group in India and the world. The nominator also nominates this 2nd time: Adani EnterprisesLet's come back to Pranav Adani, He is one of the notable businessman of Adani Family, passes WP:GNG. Having presence on notorious resources passes WP:SIGCOV. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prove how it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, vague hand waving at policies does not amount to much. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources have been posted by users wanting to keep this article, although I have already addressed and analysed them in my replies, I'm still going to post a source analysis in tabular form to make it easier for the closer.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	https://www.india.com/business/meet-man-who-studied-at-harvard-and-boston-works-closely-with-gautam-adani-he-is-adanis-7278041/	Promotional tone and emphasizes his "blood relation" to Gautam Adani, falls under NEWSORGINDIA.	No	Yes	No	Yes
2	https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/pranav-adani-powering-ahead-114111201488_1.html	Promotional flattering puff piece from 2014 that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA.	No	Yes	No	Yes
3	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMe6BgJCXfM	DD footage of his speech at GIS 2023.	Yes	NA	No	No
4	https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-pranav-adani-one-of-the-heirs-to-india-s-leading-business-empire-he-is-gautam-adani-s-nephew-3111696	Appears to be a promotional press release like the business standard source above, falls under NEWSORGINDIA.	No	Yes	No	Yes
5	https://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/columns/story/indias-green-journey-why-the-country-must-tone-down-its-reliance-on-thermal-energy-according-to-pranav-adani-418968-2024-02-26	Probably the transcript of his speech at a summit,the source lists Pranav Adani as the author.	No	No	No	No
6	https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/article/3281554/meet-4-heirs-poised-inherit-gautam-adanis-us213-billion-empire-karan-jeet-pranav-and-sagar-company	A few passages dedicated to him emphasizing his role as the inheritor of Adani's fortune.	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
7	https://www.financialexpress.com/life/lifestyle-meet-pranav-adani-the-lesser-known-nephew-of-gautam-adani-and-brother-of-karan-and-jeet-adani-know-about-his-career-education-and-more-3588785/	Indian outlet & promotional puff piece, has generic byline and falls under NEWSORGINDIA.	No	Yes	No	Yes
8	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-08/adani-group-says-it-can-revamp-dharavi-even-as-it-becomes-political-flash-point	Only the second last paragraph covers him,while the last one is quoting him, the source only appears to state his relationship with regards to Adani group's efforts at slum rehabilitation.	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
9	https://www.rediff.com/money/report/pix-special-meet-the-young-man-behind-the-success-of-adani-group/20141113.htm	Same article as the business standard source above.	No	Yes	No	Yes
10	https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/pranav-adani-meets-yogi-adityanath-offers-to-invest-in-food-parks-power-7076516/	WP:ROUTINE coverage about him announcing investments in Uttar Pradesh	Yes	No	No	Yes
11	https://www.livemint.com/Companies/DqJuRxvZs9nLSrDnBnMZ4H/Adani-Enterprises-names-Pranav-Adani-as-additional-director.html	WP:ROUTINE coverage & passing mention about being named as a director of an Adani subsidiary.	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
12	https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/business/business-news/gautam-adani-lesser-known-nephew-pranav-adani-adani-enterprises-md-know-everything-about-him/articleshow/113673383.cms	Another puff piece in the same vein as all the previous articles.	No	Yes	No	Yes

- Ratnahastin (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on WP:NEWSORGINDIA, there is no indication of sponsored content, such as supplements, published by these media outlets. Additionally, there is no evidence of Brand Wire, Press Release News, Business Spotlight, Brand Post, or Impact Feature. It remains unclear why the nominator continues to consider the content as paid. Avishek Pilot (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already addressed this. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions alone may not serve as a valid basis for arguments. The entire summary of the AFD seems to rely on personal thoughts without supporting or verifiable evidence to substantiate the concerns raised. Some comments made during the discussion seem aimed at challenging opposing point. As this is a collaborative discussion, it’s important to consider all perspectives and await the final decision. Avishek Pilot (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address what I wrote there. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per source analysis provided by the nominator, the subject appears to have only received coverage in paid advertorials while reliable and independent sources only offer rudimentary coverage, that too for being Adani's nephew. Nxcrypto Message 14:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources are available, and as per WP:BASIC, established WP:GNG. Please see the coverage the rediff.com here, Indian Express here, Livemint here, Navbharat Times here. The arguments on WP:NEWSORGINDIA seem to center around the confusion of whether the content is paid or not. However, as per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, there is no indication of paid coverage, only a writing style often used in Indian media. Historically, Indian media uses a promotional tone to attract readers, this does not necessarily indicate paid coverage. If this standard were applied broadly, no Indian article would remain on Wikipedia, as the common issue would always be a promotional tone without evidence of paid coverage. Deleting an article based on such a premise does not align with WP:PURPOSE. Kevarove (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That rediff source is literally the same article & authored by the same guy as the Business Standard article that has been already addressed above. Indian Express & Livemint are merely routine news coverage about him investing in Uttar Pradesh and being named as a director of an Adani subsidiary. Navbharat article is an unreliable promotional puff piece. None of these sources address any of the concerns raised prior or fall out of the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source analysis is persuasive, far more so than any of the Keep analyses. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The source analysis by the nominator appears to be based on personal interpretations, as reflected in comments like 'promotional tone,' 'promotional press release,' 'probably the transcript,' 'Indian outlet,' and 'promotional puff piece.' These points lacking in dependability. Additionally, as WP:NEWSORGINDIA is under question. The subject is a well-known business entity, recognized in India and globally. The analysis by Kevarove Pass WP:SIGCOV. Wyzoqaku (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The words I have used are already used at WP:NEWSORGINDIA, there's no personal interpretation here. Your post is only reiterating comments by prior votes. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to have enough coverage for WP:GNG. Kevarove have added 4 new refs which are Pass WP:N. The sources has significantly provided coverage to this person. Bojawa (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock.[reply]
Delete per nominator's source analysis and the absence of policy- or source-based keep !votes. I also disagree with the "no consensus" argument above. The history of socking/UPE here is very concerning. At risk of casting improper aspersions, I will note my lack of surprise at seeing that this AfD has attracted a large number of new or inexperienced editors. Toadspike [Talk] 08:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 12:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I said this after the second re-list nearly a week ago, and I still believe its true. There currently is no consensus in this discussion to delete the article. The source analysis by Ratnahastin has not made a significant change in consensus, and opinions remain fairly evenly divided (not that it's a vote). It's time to close this as no consensus.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the SPI. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is concerning, but even absent the discounted commenters, I still don't think there is a clear consensus to delete.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the CU's comment It seems improbable that half a dozen unrelated good-faith actors would show up to an AfD with a history of UPE while hopping across proxies. I would say Wikipedia:Open_proxies#Checkuser applies here. - We will have to discount everyone listed there. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing that, Ratnahastin. 4meter4, I disagree. The !votes to keep have been entirely free of sourcing or policy-based arguments. And while I agree with your point about systemic bias to some extent, we won't improve the Indian media landscape with an AfD, and a member of the Adani family is the last person I'd consider oppressed by systemic bias. Toadspike [Talk] 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a member of the Adani family is the last person I'd consider oppressed by systemic bias - Infact, they have thoroughly abused Wikipedia for self promotion. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources listed are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG.Adamantine123 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate Ratnahastin's source analysis but this isn't fully correct; there are important references that pass SIGCOV. I agree with what 4meter4 said above as well.Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are those references? - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I found this [1] and with some of the above mentioned it should pass WP:BASIC , WP:GNG Chikwendummesonma (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has a promotional tone and the prose appears to be AI generated: GPTzero analysis of some random samples taken from it [2] [3] [4] - This means that article is perhaps just a collection of hallucinations, therefore not WP:RS. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally I would not relist a third time per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting discussions. However, source analysis changes things, making further discussion appropriate so that maybe this contentious AfD can reach a definitive close without inviting review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two !votes have been struck as socks and a CheckUser has recommended that another four !voters here be blocked. Toadspike [Talk] 08:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]