Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akash Ambani

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Not the best argued AfD we've ever had but the keep arguments are ultimately insufficient for a BLP. A Traintalk 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Ambani

[edit]
Akash Ambani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why is this person notable? Norcaes (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly speedy - fails WP:NBIO. May be a case of WP:G11. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to understand why this individual deserves a Wikipedia page. First, the article introduces him as the chief of strategy of a new telecom company. When even Verizon's chief of strategy doesn't have or warrant a Wikipedia page yet, I can't imagine why Mr. Ambani does. His next point of 'notability' is that he is the son of a billionaire industrialist. Again, this does not warrant a Wikipedia page. Next, we move on to the section about his 'Business Career' which consists of an indirect quote about his views on the telecom company he works at, followed by a few rudimentary and irrelevant points about the firm and its launch party with a Bollywood star. There's an uncited mention of his co-ownership of a major cricket team (possibly by virtue of his family owning it). We then move on to a larger section about his 'Personal Life' which provides an account of his high school and undergraduate education, his support of Arsenal FC, his family, and his recent engagement. In all this, I can't find a single substantial point that fulfills Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Norcaes (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fails WP:A7 as well as WP:G11 after closer examination. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this person even with all the sources provided. Ajf773 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not even have officer in his title, not even close to being notable. OK, this is more a backhanded comment on the proliferation of COO, CIO, CISO and on and on titles than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Hi All! I believe that merely basing the discussion on the content only present on the article right now is not fair. A quick Google search tells me that he passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG through substantial mentions in a lot of verifiable publications, Entrepreneur, for instance, and others already on the page. GQ, who also featured him in a cover story, called him "India's most influential young Indians" in 2017 (here) while he is also credited for M&As and new ventures at his organization. He has also received coverage where the company he is heading strategy for, Jio has been in the news such as acquiring a music streaming system to create the largest streaming company in the subcontinent (here) and venturing into blockchain (bit speculative: this and this). These are just some things that I found within a few minutes on Google search and as such he is definitely notable. Lastly, I also believe he satisfies WP:CCS through lines mentioned in the GQ and Entrepreneur articles. Some of these include - "man behind Reliance’s open office culture and open collaboration framework" (Entrepreneur) and "Ambani helped grow an initial 60-person team to a 17,000-strong workforce, achieving the goal of 100 million subscribers in just 170 days" (GQ). I strongly support keeping this page and do not agree with its deletion FlyingBlueDream (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi FlyingBlueDream, thank you for joining the discussion. I'm glad we can all (so far) seem to agree that the article in its present state doesn't deserve a presence on Wikipedia. I'd like to address your points one at a time:
1. My quick Google search did not show up anything that warranted a Wikipedia page; in fact, I reached the sixth page of the search results before finding coverage (on a website called 'moneycontrol.com', which happens to be owned by Reliance, his father's company) that did not involve his and his sister's recent engagements or coverage in the context of his father, and as you know, notability is not inherited and Wikipedia is host to neither gossip nor breaking news.
2. The headline of the article in the Entrepreneur article is 'Here's What Heir to India's Richest Man Said at His Maiden Speech', which I'm not sure would convince everyone here about its validity as evidence of independent notability.
3. Since you mention the sources already in the article, it's worth pointing out that all the articles cited are in the primary context of his relation to his father, except for two articles by The Economic Times: 'Here's what made Akash Ambani fall in love with football' (which is hardly relevant) and a joint interview with his sister as senior employees of a company owned by their father. I'm not entirely sure the latter is a good source because it has indirect references to their father's wealth, their "style quotient", and the family's "private jet" but I can understand if someone else disagrees with that.
4. The link to the GQ article you mentioned features his name as part of a sublist of four, out of which two people do not seem to have warranted their own articles, therefore, I would agree that it's a valid source, but not enough to warrant an article on its own merit.
5. There's no doubt that Jio has been in the news but the question at hand is whether or not Mr. Ambani has received enough sustained coverage for non-trivial activities that warrant a Wikipedia page. Any further concrete evidence of that would be appreciated. It's important to distinguish coverage of Mr. Ambani from coverage of Jio, and I believe some of your citations mistake the latter for the former.
6. The two articles you mentioned in the context of Jio launching digital currencies both refer to a report by a website called Livemint, which fails to serve as a good source because (a) WP:CRYSTALBALL (b) WP:GNG requires a topic to have "...received significant coverage in reliable sources..." and Mr. Ambani is referred to all of once outside the context of his father within the article in question.
For the reasons above, I maintain my stand of delete. Norcaes (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Continued discussion —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 07:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  • Comment Hi Norcaes, thank you for your comments. I am happy to discuss the points made by you in relation to this article’s deletion. I have responded to the points you have made individually.
1. I believe one of the reasons why the search results seen talk about his marriage is due to the freshness of the story and the fact that this has been widely reported as both, an item of news and gossip across a multitude of platforms. Google prioritizes recent events and trending topics, which is why the results appear that way. Unlike in Wikipedia (and rightly so), breaking news and freshness of topics are key parameters based on which search engines display the results we observe. This factor I believe does in no way diminish his notability
2. I am curious as to why this article does not convince you of his notability. The entire piece talks about Akash Ambani and is an independent publication talking in detail about said individual. Moreover, the publication in question is definitely one with considerable authority and renown
3. I disagree with your premise here that the article text mainly talks about his relationship with this father as being the most pivotal note to warrant coverage on him. I simply think that’s some contextual relevance that comes up because Mukesh Ambani is India’s richest man. This is not too dissimilar to content about Amit Bhatia where you will invariably have a mention of his relationship with Lakshmi Mittal (just an example)
4. The GQ article is a detailed profile on him, covering both his work and personal aspects. It has highlighted facts right from the results achieved by the project he has had a part to play in to certain personal tastes. That being said, it is part of a wider range of online coverage received by him through the last few years. Additionally, while you mention the some individuals profiled in the same article do not have Wikipedia pages, others such as Roshni Nadar and Pirojsha Adi Godrej do
5. He absolutely has received enough coverage for non-trivial items. Because he is involved on the business side of things related to several things under the reliance umbrella, businesses and other aspects associated with the same will invariably receive some coverage in articles that talk about him. That being said, there is enough information about him or his role within the functioning of a particular entity
6. Livemint is a widely read newspaper in India and is very much a presence in the mainstream coverage of the financial markets. Hence, I disagree with your argument of having a citation that has ‘received significant coverage in reliable sources’ in this case
Apart from this, there are also places where he has received coverage, an example of this is India Today and also the cover of Hello! in the recent past. For these reasons, I do think that we should retain the page and continue to make edits so that is in much better shape than its present form. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi again, FlyingBlueDream. If I may comment on the new references, I'd like to point out that (1) the India Today article is a Top 20 list called 'The Inheritors', which makes it difficult to use as source establishing his independent notability (2) the link to 'Hello! India' isn't a link to the article itself so I can't comment on its content, since a celebrity magazine might not focus on his business career. As for your other points:
1. While I agree that recent events do receive more coverage, I don't know if we can give the topic (Mr. Ambani) the benefit of doubt here. For example, despite the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal that's made headlines everywhere, you wouldn't have to scroll past the third result for 'Mark Zuckerberg' (let alone six pages, as in the case of Mr. Ambani) before finding an article or webpage unrelated to the event. Therefore, we can conclude that a major part of Mr. Zuckerberg's notability does not come from recent events. I don't believe the same can be said about Mr. Ambani.
2. My problem with the piece is that it covers an event (a member of India's richest family makes his first public speech) and developments in Jio's operations. It is not coverage of Mr. Ambani, he appears to be a instrument for communicating developments in Jio.
3. After re-reading the article, I'm unconvinced that his family relationships are not a primary context in the coverage, but I can understand that you may disagree. While I hadn't heard of Amit Bhatia before your example, his Wiki page has cited references to an established career in investment that preceded and was independent of his new family's business. The same can't be said for Mr. Ambani.
4. While I followed your link to the GQ article, I'm no longer sure we're looking at the same webpage. The link takes me to a short list, not a profile. Plus, the individuals you mentioned have some impressive credentials far beyond recognition in a lifestyle magazine: Ms. Nadar is 57th on a Forbes list of the most powerful women in the world, and Mr. Godrej has multiple other awards to his name, in addition to forming partnerships with the Clinton Foundation, as well as a short stint in government. I'd have to disagree with suggestions that Mr. Ambani has attained a comparable level of accomplishment.
5. "Enough information" about his role in an entity cannot be a sufficient criterion to warrant an encyclopedic article. If that were the case, Wikipedia would be filled with articles on senior employees of Fortune 500 companies.
6. I didn't mean to imply that the article was a bad source by virtue of its publisher; I believe the article itself isn't a good reference for justifying an article on Mr. Ambani because of the two reasons I mentioned previously.
I respect your suggestion to retain and improve the article, it's a productive outlook. However, I made and maintain my stance of delete because I believe that, at present, the topic does not have sufficient notability, and it is simply WP:TOOSOON to feature an article on Mr. Ambani. If he achieves sufficient independent notability in the future, we would not have lost much by deleting this article, except some tidbits on his personal life. Norcaes (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Hi Norcaes, If we were to look beyond the barrage of stories that specifically talk about his recently announced engagement, there is indeed widespread notable coverage that the individual in question has received over the past few years. If a personality has received coverage for a wide number of reasons (topics), be it for being an "instrument for communicating developments in a company," or as a director of three firms or as someone who the media pays attention when he's speaking or speculating, I'm convinced (with a reinforced energy) that Mr. Ambani does warrant a page for himself on Wikipedia. Therefore, even I'm glad we can all (so far) seem to agree that the article in a refined state (with all the newly found sources) does deserve a presence on Wikipedia.
In the articles that have been brought up, I am not just referring the content by merely skimming the title. There is enough content inside (independent of Mr. Ambani - where he has been credited with building a team, redefining office culture, and spearheading an organization that is currently in the limelight. I know notability is not inherited, but after going through all these articles, I believe the sources talk about Mr. Ambani's actions as resultants for Jio and other ventures and not the other way around. There are also "multiple credible claims of significance" in both the Entrepreneur and GQ article. Don't just take these articles individually - I'm talking about combining their power to establish notability, which is where I would like to reiterate that the subject passes WP:GNG. You also brought up Mark Zuckerberg and the coverage he has on the mainstream media. I simply think that the degree of coverage is not something we can compare since these are two individuals in different geographies and have completely different roles within the business ecosystem in which they operate. Also, I do not think that comparing two individuals in terms of their notability where one has more presence across the mainstream media is grounds to render the presence of the other individual in this comparison moot.
As for the coverage, GNG states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" which is where I would like to disagree with you when you say that "whether or not Mr. Ambani has received enough sustained coverage for non-trivial activities". I am not mistaken; these articles also talk about Mr. Ambani's efforts. Of course, he is closely associated with Jio, so an article cannot be entirely about pomp and circumstancing a person. It has to take a blanket, journalistic approach. You might be talking about editorials, and per GNG, they are not to be trusted much.
The only reason I redirected you to those cover editions are to signify that there have been detailed interviews and feature stories of Mr. Ambani, which again, combined with all the references that we could together find, reinforces my stand for the article's sustenance. You mentioned that the GQ article is only a snippet; that's because it requires a subscription for full access. Just because an article is not freely available does not mean the content cannot be cited to establish or help in establishing a point. Nor does it impact its reliability per WP:RSC. If I were to take one point from that story, I would go back and refer to this line alone - "Ambani helped grow an initial 60-person team to a 17,000-strong workforce, achieving the goal of 100 million subscribers in just 170 days". There is no implication about his inheritance/family tie or anything about his glamourous life. WP:TOOSOON would have been the case had Mr. Ambani still been perceived as someone who is just interested in football, but the current scenario tells me that his actions (both in his personal capacity as well as a professional) are of universal interest.
Another reason for sustained and sufficient coverage is that these sources are only English publications. India being a multilingual country, its media scope is wide. In my research, I have also found sources in vernacular languages. Publications like Zeebiz, Jagran, Lokmat, ABP Live (which again are independent of the English ones above) are few such sources that have also covered him AND his company together. I'm sure you will be able to see where I'm coming from when I say and close that Mr. Ambani passes GNG and has received wide, not just sufficient, and sustained coverage ever since he has been in the business. Not to mention I don't know how WP:G11 is applicable to the article even in its current state. It, as I have argued above, passes WP:A7. I reiterate that the article should be kept and be expanded to the community's best abilities. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the fruitful discussion, FlyingBlueDream. After reading your argument, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Mr. Ambani's independent notability, but I hope our comments can help other editors make an informed decision. Have a great week. Norcaes (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Notable business personality with heavy coverage in Indian publications as far as I can see. As mentioned above by others, he is involved in sports and business fields. Passes the general criteria if the inheritance part is left out. Also, I think we should look at building Wikipedia here rather than removing valid content at the whiff of presumed limited importance, especially when it’s about biographies. I have been noticing this in a lot of articles recently. Thank you. Gaurav.jhala88 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Per Norcaes.NOTINHERITED and TOOSOON.~ Winged BladesGodric 05:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:13, 24 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akash_Ambani&oldid=1137547497"