Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ketan Kadam

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ketan Kadam

Ketan Kadam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable, advertorial. only

User4edits, should we have this page deleted?

• Richard and Maurice McDonald --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

What about this article, btw? User4edits (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. User4edits (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Restaurants might be notable, this person isn't. Simply being mentioned in the articles isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seem to be plenty of sources (I just added seven, and all I did to find them was to put his name into Google News and see if anything interesting popped up), but more to the point, the article is about both the businesses and their founder. It would be silly to delete the article about him, which is approximately half about him and half about his restaurants, then re-create an article, only under a different title, that is approximately half about his restaurants and half about him. The big restaurant chain is probably separately notable (it's unusual for a restaurant chain to have hundreds of stores in multiple countries and not be notable), but that's a consideration for another day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All restaurant chains will have some news articles on them, including their founder's name. He may be included in the restaurant's article (if that is notable), but having an article on him should be merited only on his demonstrated notability, which I still can not find. User4edits (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposed notablities:

  1. opened one of the first nightclubs in Mumbai -- as rest of the first would have

  2. 'mortgaged his home in 2000 to start a Lebanese restaurant which was later sold -- as businesses do usually

  3. opened a fine-dining Italian restaurant -- which was covered by local media (as usual) and a "Restaurant Report" by NYT

  4. 2013, he was working towards opening bars -- again mentioned once in running (amongst statements (media bytes) taken from others)

  5. Left alcohol business -- Covered by a restaurant niche-news type (reliable?)

  6. An award by PETA -- innovation - replacing horses (per Supreme Court Order) by Batteries

  7. "invented" anti-theft manhole covers?? - ...??..

  Summary: Still, can't find what this man is notable for. Not any restaurant or bar has been notable. His "inventions" grab one-time attention of media but do not fructify to even the second phase of discussion (forget implementation even on a pilot basis), there is no follow-up on such remarkable "inventions".

  I do not wish to belittle someone's hardwork or attempts, but forcing everyone and everything on Wikipedia is counter-productive(makes WP a white/yellow pages).

  User4edits (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that you have quite the right idea. There aren't "proposed notabilities" (which is not a concept any notability guideline recognizes). You don't have to "find what this man is notable for". The GNG does not require that the subject be notable for something; it only requires that they be notable. As the top of Wikipedia:Notability puts it, we want articles about subjects that have received attention from the world at large. This includes people who are "famous for being famous", instead of having received attention for something that is easy to understand. See, e.g., Rob Enderle, whom one of the newspaper articles (cited in the article) said "sometimes seems like the most-quoted man in America". If you're looking for what Enderle's "notable for", I guess you could say that he's notable for giving soundbites to reporters a couple thousand times a year. He got coverage; therefore he qualifies for an article. Ditto for this man: even if you don't understand or agree with why this businessman got coverage, he did get that coverage – amounting to a couple thousand words across more than 20 English-language sources – and therefore he qualifies for an article.

  (As for "forcing everyone and everything on Wikipedia", I don't think anyone familiar with my editing would consider that to be a realistic possibility. You might be interested in the incomplete list at User:WhatamIdoing#Policies and guidelines you can ask me about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the analysis, most are just routine business happenings told as articles, nothing terribly notable about most of them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

struck my duplicate !vote above Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as
  WP:SIGCOV
  .

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2024 (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.