Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyril Shroff (4th nomination)

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. After a significant excising of promotional content, there are multiple WP:RS profiles to use for the remainder. RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Shroff

AfDs for this article:

[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)

This page should be deleted, frankly. I have never seen such a sketchy page, and it's furthermore rather unnotable Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt 4 times at AfD is silly. This is PROMO and ref-bombed. The Finanical Times article is a dead link, the rest are PR. Winning this many awards would make this person super-human; this is so over-the-top promo to the point of absurdity. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:N Agreed, 4 times at AfD is silly, not sure how this is a promo where some articles are a critical analysis of the firm and how the split of Cyril Shroff's original firm AMSS impacted the Indian legal industry.

The sources provided are of prominent news outlets and the awards are from well established worldwide legal organisations which are not limited to India.

Financial times has removed the article but here's a link to the tweet which financial times had tweeted from their own handle about the article - the authors name is mentioned in the tweet too which is referenced here. Here's the twitter link Financial Times on Twitter: "At Home: In midtown Mumbai, James Crabtree visits the couple who head India's largest law firm http://t.co/gC30rgyOO5 http://t.co/nRos9SfiaV" / Twitter Anandyadav87 (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fluff, someone visiting the top law firm's owners is very much celebrity gossip type stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: doesn't matter if its fluff, its still SIGCOV by an independent and reliable source Jack4576 (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:N Unsure why you think the page is un notable for one of the top corporate lawyers, well known among India's top businessmen and the founder of India's Biggest Law Firm. Making vague comments without giving a substantial reason and nominating for AFD is actually absurd. I can also see that you have nominated a lot of other pages for deletion too which are related to one of the prominent business families in India - The Adani's, which makes this nomination even more weird. Anandyadav87 (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He more than likely is notable, but if we don't have extensive sources talking about him in a non-flashy way, we can't keep the page. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deletion of notable pages due to a "lack of extensive sources talking about a subject in a non-flashy way" is not WP policy Jack4576 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: WP:GNG requires high-quality, reliable sources: there are a lot of sources cited here, but most of them don't really cross that bar. With that said, the Forbes article does, and certainly represents WP:SIGCOV. A few hits on Google Books (e.g. a chapter here might also qualify. It's borderline, and I think it's beyond question that the article is currently more WP:PUFFERY and WP:PROMO than anything else, but I think WP:GNG is just about satisfied: pruned of the dubiously-notable awards and with greater discussion of his coverage in the media, this could be a reasonable article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page based on the rationale presented by Oaktree b. RPSkokie (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the FT profile archived here is SIGCOV and therefore the subject is presumed notable. In addition, as Anandyadav87 has noted this is a prominent indian lawyer. Frankly nominating these types of pages furthers English wikipedia's Anglo-centric bias and makes the encyclopedia all the worse for it. If the article is PROMO, then edit the article and remove the promo. Hell, I'll do it right now myself, watch me. Jack4576 (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finished cleaning article for PROMO Jack4576 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2023 (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.