Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Ashish A. Chanchlani[edit]

[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)

The article was earlier deleted after a general consensus in AfD. The creator added the middle name which conceals the article deletion history. Neurofreak (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

The speedy is recently declined by Sjakkalle. and i clearly mentioned in article's talk page that the current version is completely different from previous version. Still Neurofreak tagged it for deletion. The reason provided by the nominator is completely baseless specially when G4 speedy is declined recently. Moreover, i used his middle name in article's title that i already explained my reason before creating the article. I have also cited the the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and clearly passes WP:GNG. Without reading the article's talk Neurofreak nominated it for deletion. I would suggest you before doing so in future first check the article's history and read carefully article's talk.DMySon 14:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment: Most of the references are from unreliable sources. Since, the article was earlier deleted through AfD (Ashish Chanchlani), admins should prevent it from recreating by tagging WP:SALT. Following is a list of unreliable/blogs/spam/gossip sources used in the article:

Unreliable

Gossip/blogposts

Uncategorized/spam?

Comment on reliable sources Most of the reliable sources are trivial mentions and others like, Hindustan Times are paid 'BRAND-POST' as per the website.^[1]^[2] Deccan Herald reference is an interview.^[3] The Times of India (TOI) reference^[4] is a one-liner "news" about the subject's casting in a web series, and another TOI reference is just a picture of him with a popular music composer.^[5] Neurofreak (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

All the resources you mentioned above, are significant, reliable and independent of the subject. Clearly passes the WP:RS. DMySon 14:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep A notable subject clearly passes WP:GNG. The article have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The current version is completely different from previously deleted.DMySon 14:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep Better sourced article after a re-write. His web series "Class of 2017" (if I remember correctly) has its own article and is notable, which makes him notable. His appearance as a cameo in "MIB:International" lends some support for his notability, as does his win at Cannes. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment Suspected hoax coverage! The subject tweeted about his cameo in MIB:International. [1] I just watched the movie, the frame appears at 22:10, and shows a different person on the screen. His association with MIB could be a hoax marketing strategy. The article claim of his cameo seems to be a hoax, unless MIB released a different version of the same film. Also, the credibility of the websites which covers it as "news" is now questionable. Neurofreak (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

You must watch the hindi version of MIB:International. For each country that cameo role has been changed. For India this role is assigned to Ashish Chanchlani.DMySon 14:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment If this is the case, I would change my decision above. I have not seen the movie so can't say if it is or isn't him... I suspect the win at Cannes would also be a hoax. Both of which lower his notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Yes, I have verified the MIB claim. Moreover, the career section of the article reads like resume, my tags were reverted by the creator, violating 3 revert-rule. The user DMySon also threatened me to block my editing rights (LMAO) for placing the tags. I suspect undisclosed payment editing. The subject's blogger award at Cannes could be true. On a second thought, if that makes him notable (I disagree because the Forbes coverage is a guest blogpost, frivolous), the article can be kept after removing spam, unreliable gossip/blog post sources. Neurofreak (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

@Oaktree b: You must check the hindi version of MIB International. Explained above in my comment.DMySon 14:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[]

CommentAbsolutely coverage is not hoax. Cannes award is not fake that clearly makes him notable, you must check these Forbes, Dumkhum apart from cannes you can see his Philanthropy section that is also covered with multiple reliable resources Amar Ujala, Jagran, DNA India. There are multiple coverage independent and reliable news websites. His role in Class of 2017 webseries also justified notability.DMySon 04:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[]

delete we just had this discussion TWO WEEKS AGO. This is disruptive attempting to get around past deletions and salting by changing the name. The "coverage" here is utter garbage - paid for publications and spam. Praxidicae (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[]

And to stop it before it starts, the attempt to use this and this as a source to prove that the high profile Cannes award is legitimate is laughably disruptive. I do not for a second believe that no actual reliable sources would fail to report on this given the nature of Cannes awards. Praxidicae (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Also, if I removed all the unreliable sources and black hat SEO spam and press releases, we'd be left with a near identical article to the last AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[]

this is what the article would look like if I removed all the unsourced content and deceptive sources and editing by DMySon. Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. And, I totally agree with Praxidicae's comment. -Hatchens (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. I declined the speedy delete because some of the new claims needed more than a cursory review. Winning a Cannes award would be very notable, but reading the cited Forbes article I don’t think the claim is really supported. That leaves the foundations too weak to support the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep: With reliable sources indicated by DMySon, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete: per Praxidicae --Dtt1^Talk 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete—Praxidicae speaks for me on this—and regarding the keep 1votes, The current version is completely different from previously deleted (maybe, but that's hardly a claim to notability in itself; having "different" sources != "better" sources), notices of HOAX material and wild claims as to "DMySon"'s better sources, are all arguments to avoid. G4 may not in its strictest sense apply, but the [last AfD] was SNOWclosed and I can see why. Since they have the right to know their previous !votes are being circumvented, pinging those who commented ther but haven't yet commented here—whichever way they !voted, per WP:CANVAS—User:Ab207, User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, User:Bonadea, User:Bmf 051, User:Aguy777 and User:hako9. ——Serial 13:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom Spiderone 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete and salt – this is not even slightly different from the previously deleted article in terms of what is relevant, namely the fact that notability is not shown. The desperate additions of multiple trivial mentions show very clearly that the person is not notable. If he were, there would be significant coverage in independent sources. The "world bloggers award" is not notable and has nothing to do with the Cannes Film Festival, other than the fact that the organisers chose to hold their (one and only) awards function in Cannes during the film festival 2019. --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete for the following reasons:
Looking at Neurofreak's "Comment on reliable sources" DMySon writes in response: "All the resources you mentioned above, are significant, reliable and independent of the subject. Clearly passes the WP:RS" That's absolute not accurate. Two of them are Hindustan Times "Brand-Post", which are press releases. Open the page source and search for "brand-post" and you'll see the other PR buzzwords. Press releases are not articles, and they are not independent of the subject. The Deccan Herald source is an interview, which I'm sure DMySon knows, would also not be independent of the subject, since it obviously involves him, and would be a primary source. This appears to be another press-release style "article". It certainly has no depth of coverage about the subject, merely just announcing a project he's going to do. The last one, a slideshow says nothing of substance about the subject. I also dislike slideshows, because we never know if it was assembled by a journalist or an intern, or something else.

Oaktree b says "His web series "Class of 2017" (if I remember correctly) has its own article and is notable, which makes him notable." This conflicts with the community's general attitude that notability is not inherited.

Superastig's comment "With reliable sources indicated by DMySon, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG" lacks any substantive argument about which sources meet which qualifications.

And as for the sources DMySon includes, "Forbes" is a Forbes contributor, i.e. a blogger. If you hover over the little "i" next to the contributor's name, there is a disclaimer that Forbes takes no responsibility for that person's opinions. Dumkhum is not a reliable source, and we don't care about first-year award events like World Blogger Awards. We don't even include these in biographies per WP:FILMCRITICLIST. So, the bulk of DMySon's arguments seem to focus on the "multiple" requirement of GNG, but not the "reliable sources", "significant coverage" or "independent" aspects that are far more important.

Oh, and looking through DMySon's edit history (set to 500 results/page) I notice that amidst their edits at this AfD, they reached out to Oaktree here with a request for Oaktree's "unbiased comment", but this is clearly a form of vote stacking, since Oaktree was the only one who !voted keep at the prior AFD, and DMySon didn't bother reaching out to any of the people who !voted delete. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete Praxidicae and Cyphoidbomb said it far better than I can. Aguy777 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[]

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.

[1] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/bhuvan-bam-or-ashish-chanchlani-fans-can-vote-to-decide-the-vmate-asli-holibaaz/story-KkhuegzVmdbheIheDOowPP.html

[2] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/top-youtubers-bhuvan-bam-and-ashish-chanchlani-collaborate-for-the-first-time-for-vmate/story-eY12hriNBNHWMNdn6pMX2J.html

[3] ttps://www.deccanherald.com/metrolife/metrolife-lifestyle/comedy-should-come-from-heart-says-youtuber-814007.html

[4] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-roped-in-for-alt-balajis-next/articleshow/59338670.cms

[5] ttps://photogallery.indiatimes.com/yearendershow/68719848.cms

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]