Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Keshary Shah

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. The "keep" !voters have made a good-faith effort here, but the lack of substance in the secondary sources has been commented on by everyone else, and not refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Anil Keshary Shah

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Anil Keshary Shah (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)

Bio spam fails WP:GNG. Little to no independent significant coverage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nepal. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know what makes you think this article as a bio spam. He is quite a popular banker and is a well known personality in banking sector of Nepal as often quoted in news media. I think being CEO of two known financial institutions, Nabil Bank and Mega Bank Nepal is huge. As far as notability is concerned, I feel this topic pass the notability bar. Generally, three sources from reputable news organization is considered. (1) "देशले मलाई धेरै दियो : अनिलकेशरी शाह". Online Khabar. (2) "Shah appointed chief executive of Nabil". The Himalayan Times. (3) "Thought Leadership Interview: Anil Keshary Shah". The Kathmandu Post.. I feel this can be improved further by any editor rather than deleting it. Some useful links to improve the article can be found below.

Sorry for stacking sources one upon another, but there's so so so many. He is a leader in his field; deserves an article. Also, per WP:IS, 'news media' is considered 'potentially independent' source when writing about a person. Thus, I don't think this should be deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 03:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

We are just not going to use online khabar to establish notability, especially for these kinds of topics. THT piece is a press release about his appointment, and doesn't count. Kathmandu Post's is an interview. I am not going to look at the "often quoted in news media" links as those do not make a person notable (except maybe academics in certain contexts). I find it hard to believe that someone would find out a person had been CEO of two banks and think "Wow, this is an achievement worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia! I must do this post-haste." Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Became the Nabil Bank's first Nepali CEO is definitely something, "Wow, this is an achievement worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia! I must do this post-haste." Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 11:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak delete Although Nabil has a large amount of media coverage, I can't find anything that is quality, in-depth coverage except for interviews. I would suggest merging to Nabil Bank, but it seems he is no longer the CEO. Same goes for Mega Nepal bank. Just being from a prominent Nepali family, having a successful banking career, and being a well-known personality in Nepal is not enough to qualify for notability. I don't see that any of the sources that Tulsi brought contain in-depth coverage. Chagropango (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as CEO of Nabil Bank which was Nepal's first private bank. There is nothing wrong with interviews as part of the notability equation. The word "interview" does not appear at WP:Notability (people) or WP:Notability. The user essay WP:Interviews is neither policy or guideline. And is more nuanced than "interviews don't count". Nor is it straight-forward if an interview is a primary or secondary source. Anyone claiming interviews don't count has some explaining to justify the position about that particular interview. -- GreenC 03:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

​When is an interview a secondary source? Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you read WP:Interviews like all of it? This is an essay, it contains useful information. But it's not the kind of thing that auto fails notability due to WP:Interviews it's too nuanced and contextual. -- GreenC 03:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop patronising, and explain how this constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You asked me a question which has an entire section devoted to it in the essay WP:Interview. So I asked if you had read it, rather than repeating what that section says. That you asserted I was "patronizing" is odd. You are the one who claims Interview don't count, but apparently had not read the only essay that exists on the subject, even after I already linked to it in the post you are replying to. As for your request how that source constitutes GNG it's one of multiple sources. The word "significant" is not word count, it means significant enough to be notable - which is 100% subjective. It could be a single sentence, it's what the content says not how many words. Or in this case the fact this person was highlighted by a reliable source, that the source considered them notable enough to publish an entire interview, is sufficient to include it as one of the sources that meets GNG. -- GreenC 16:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What you have to know here is that WP:INTERVIEW news sources are not notable enough while such articles may not be independent of the subject matter.Additdonaly, they are regarded as self-published material

DIVINE (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any indication this source is not independent of the subject. That's a claim you need to show, I can't prove a negative. The word "interview" does not appear anywhere at WP:SELFPUB. As the essay INTERVIEW says, the question over self-pub is a matter of how your using the source, the same source might be primary in one instance and secondary in another. If your quoting based on what the person said about themselves, that it is self-pub. But in this case we are not, the source is being used to cite material written by the journalist who is giving the interview. -- GreenC 16:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

So What do you look for when you’re hiring employees?Such types of personal questions on publication should be regarded as reliable SRC here in wiki? As per WP:INTERVIEW it's clearly mentioned Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material. DIVINE (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This is what our Wikipedia article says:

Shah was born in August 1 to parents Narayan Keshari Shah and Bhinda Swari Shah. He studied at Harvard Kennedy School, pursued Master of Business Administration at FMS Delhi and completed Bachelor of Business Administration at George Washington University in the United States.

This is what the kathmandupost.com says:

"Anil Keshary Shah has been the chief executive officer of Nabil Bank, one of Nepal’s premier banks since 2018. Shah, 53, studied at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University and at the George Washington University in the United States."

Setting aside the text doesn't fully verify, the above text is written by Himendra Mohan Kumar who is the journalist giving the interview. It is secondary source material. WP:INTERVIEW says "If the material is secondary, and if it is published in a reliable publication, then it can sometimes be used to cite facts about third parties". As noted by INTERVIEW, a source can contain both primary and secondary material, it depends which part is being cited. -- GreenC 04:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC) GreenC 04:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to seriously argue that two sentences atop an interview—(1) the current job of the interviewee and (2) where they went to school—are enough to qualify the source for WP:GNG, I don't know what to say. I especially don't know what to say considering we are talking about a person in the money business. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Those two sentences establish the reliability of the source per the section Wikipedia:Interviews#Reliability. But there is also Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability does the interview contribute to notability? I would agree they are not the most probing questions, but they are not obviously marketing either. Questions like "How do you cope with criticism?" and about having to leave his daughter behind in the US are not clearly marketing it looks like a genuine sincere interview. That a reliable source gave attention to the subject contributes to notability. -- GreenC 04:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact remains, it does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Without sources (plural) qualifying for GNG, community consensus says we don't write stand alone articles. Without in-depth coverage in high quality, completely independent, reliable sources, we can not produce a balanced biography on a living person. When we rely on scraping, on primary coverage, on press releases, etc., we end up with a resume like the current article. All it says is where the subject studied and what jobs he had. That's simply not worth a stand-alone. We ought to be able to show how a person is worthy of note by an encyclopedia. People ought to leave having learned something when they click an article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no "fact", only disagreement. I think it does meet GNG. I get it, you disagree, but please don't hammer away at my vote with your opinions, use your own vote for that. Anyway your making stuff up about "relying on press release" the same way you said interviews don't count. -- GreenC 15:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's community consensus. But you're right. I am clearly not going to change your mind. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

References

• Additional on my keep, the topic may not have huge in-depth coverage, but it definitely has multiple independent reliable sources from well-established news outlets of Nepal which is enough to be combined and demonstrate notability per WP:NBASIC. To support my statement, see these sources mentioned below.

1. "Nabil goes rural". Nepali Times.
2. "Selfie reveals the photographer in banker Shah". The Himalayan Times.
3. "बैंकर अनिल शाहलाई कोरोना संक्रमण". Annapurna Post.
4. "नबिल बैंकका कार्ड बाहकले कतार एयरवेजमा छुट पाउने". Ekantipur.com (in Nepali).
5. "कर्पोेरेट दसैं योजना र किनमेल". Saptahik.

I deny these sources as trivial coverage of the subject even if you do. Also, the topic meets additional criteria for WP:ANYBIO as the subject has received several awards (the list is incomplete). Moreover, a book has covered about him Retirement at Fifty. If editing can improve the article, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Its not a big deal; notability is only a mere test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Became the first Nepali CEO of Nepal's first private bank, Nabil Bank is definitely something "worthy of notice" and have potentially a huge merit to have an article. That's it. I rest my case. It should be kept. Thank you for your understanding. — Tulsi 24x7 08:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

So, I suppose we are going to write "As of 2019, Shah's wife did his shopping for him for the Dashain festival. When he did go shopping, he went to Durbarmarg, New Road or Bhatbhateni supermarket" if we are going to use this (your No. 5). Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely misleading me, my context/point of view here. I am saying that the topic has multiple independent reliable sources. — Tulsi 24x7 03:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

...that we can't actually use? Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: There aren't enough sources to demonstrate enough importance. The majority of the sources are secondary and lack credibility. DIVINE (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect: Per nom. The argument that being CEO of a notable bank passes for GNG is somewhat flawed. Had that been the case, every-time a CEO is appointed to this bank, a new article will appear. Because this person is active in media, various articles pops up in search and mentions in news articles. There are few interviews in National TV as well such as this one. But there is no indepth coverage in any sources. So, I feel this article lies in a gray zone. At best, it can be redirected to Nabil Bank. Best! nirmal (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

+ And regarding the awards, note that "Success Achievers Awards 2021" is provide by a dubious organization called Anuj Media (never heard of it). "Manager of the Year Award 2008" could be somewhat notable. And, I could not find any info about "Asian Idol 2007", is it a musical award?nirmal (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I do not see any consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nom, vanity spam with routine sourcing, nothing significant found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2022 (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.