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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onkar Singh Batra (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. The alleged "world records" were registered not by Guinness but by obscure title mill organizations that themselves did not warrant Wikipedia articles. Most of the sources listed are WordPress blogs, not proper news websites. The so-called "Paradox Sonic Space Research Association", of which the article subject is the "CEO", consists of an empty website, and it seems that they cannot even make up their minds whether it's called "Paradox Sonic Space Research Association" or "Paradox Sonic Space Research Agency". Either way, WP:COMPANY are clearly not met. Building a cubesat is not particularly impressive, one can buy a cubesat kit for several thousand dollars. He received several awards, yes, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP.

There is obviously a concerted effort to promote the kid, that the user who created the article has no other contributions and created his account a day ago further proves it. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe the notability criteria have been met as of yet. Escargoten (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, COVID-19, Software, and India. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Building a cubesat is neat, but any person can do one now (that was the point of the program). Records "won" don't seem notable. Seems like the kid is on a path to a bright future, but not notable, yet, for wiki purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI news is a press-release service, India Science appears to be user-generated... The rest of the sources (as explained above) don't help the situation. The world's youngest webmaster? He runs a website; that is not notable in 2023, perhaps in 1993 it would have been. Some of the claims seem outlandish. I'm amazed this was passed at AfC. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep India Science appears to be a governmental source and as such could be considered reliable. The record "won" are registered by World Record Certification Limited (and not the Guinness and the wiki article doesn't emphasize on records being a "Guinness Title". The subject is definitely notable, article may need some cleanup. I'm not amazed over this being passed at AfC. Claims about the CubeSat are true and recorded in various news websites. Rohit9235 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ok, it's a reliable source, with trivial coverage. He's mentioned in a few lines and nothing more. We need a heck of a lot more than that to meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here, here, here, here and here Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's the same article published on several websites. As I said, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP. Escargoten (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although he have some coverage from reliable sources but needs in-depth, few of the sources are news blogposts. Being an author of the book, he also doesn't pass the WP:CREATIVE. He won India's highest Children award but sources and Google aren't confirming it in anyway. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @M.Ashraf333 I found some sources on the web confirming this. Pradhan Mantri Bal Puraskar is the India's highest civilian honor for Here and here. A tweet by the Prime Minister of India confirming this either. Rohit9235 (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  The second one appears to be a click bait site, the first one looks about the same. Was he not covered in the Times of India or other large news organization? It would really help the case here if we can see coverage in large newspapers. Those you've given seen suspect, and the fact that the child isn't mentioned anywhere else is a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here, here, here, here, here and here Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Amar Ujala and Punjab Kesari are two large Hindi news organizations in India. India Today and The Hindi said 'Omkar Singh' here and here. Another piece of news from The Hindu covers a bit about Onkar Singh, Bal Puraskar under KAMP here Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Agree to previous comment. Winning the highest civilian honour for children would’ve made him better placed in terms of notability but there are no Governmental sources or press releases that state the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohan9082 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article's subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE; it's supported by press releases, churnalism, and unreliable sources. The article has a lot of WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims but questionable sources to support those claims. The entry for the world record for "youngest male webmaster" says he was seven, but he would have been about fourteen when the record was apparently recorded. How did they verify it seven years after it supposedly happened, took them at their word? Invented a time machine to go back and make sure nobody helped him make the website? Even if that world record site was 100% reliable and didn't have such an emphasis on selling "world record" status as a product (We work with brands and enterprises worldwide to deliver the ultimate record-breaking marketing campaigns. That doesn't add up. Notability hasn't been established. - Aoidh (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't find any sources as WordPress blogposts (correct me if I'm wrong). The company Paradox Sonic Space Research Association has a registered name. The website appears to be on maintenance, can't consider it as an empty website. The factor of notability does not comes up with how impressive building a CubeSat is. Your idea of a one buying a CubeSat kit appears more of a conspiracy (cite a proof here). Rohit9235 (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

no, wordpress blogs are user generated and not a reliable source. "WordPress.com is a blog hosting service that runs on the WordPress software. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. WordPress.com should never be used for claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated. "[1]. And [2], if he built it in school, anyone can, so it's not notable. If his "company" built it, it isn't sourced from a neutral third-party source, so we can't use the citation given (and it's not notable anyway).

Anyone can register a website, give me five minutes and I'll hop over to wix and create my own. His is blank, so can't be used to support notability, as it has NO CONTENT. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the article reads.... "the company Paradox Sonic was founded by him." There is no proof on that satellite is sourced from a third-party period. Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's related to him as you said, you can't use a website created by him as a source, he's connected to it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you have already !voted to Keep the article above I have struck this duplicate bolded recommendation per WP:AFDFORMAT. - Aoidh (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Enough reliable sources to verify the notability of the article. Don't find a reason for deletion so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Please quote what sources you think are best to prove reliability, that's the issue, we don't seem to have any. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here, here, here, here, here and here Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Those are related to the satellite, not about this person. We could perhaps create an article on the satellite, I'm not seeing how those help GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I find it quite ironic that the only people who voted for Keep are the article's author — who created his account 2 days ago for this sole purpose — and a certain Rohit9235 with an account created today. Then a similar empty account with no contributions attempted to close the discussion. Mr. Singh, I understand that you don't like that the article that you wrote about yourself is being considered for deletion, but I hope you realize that sockpuppeting is against Wikipedia rules and that you're not authorized to singlehandedly shut down discussions. Escargoten (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree to all previous comments. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP due to fake title mill "awards" and no real sources. EbuKedi (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — EbuKedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I highly doubt Rashtriya Bal Puraskar or Sikh 100 list as a "title mill award". Could you cite proofs on awards being fake? Rohit9235 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Making a 30 under 30 list isn't proof of notability. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree but calling it a "title mill award" is defamatory either. Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  The "title mill award" was a reference to the claims of being the "World's Youngest Theoretical Author" and "World's Youngest Webmaster", which are indeed only sourced by title mill websites. Rashtriya Bal Puraskar is not a title mill, but in itself not a proof of notability either. Escargoten (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A reference for "World's Youngest Theoretical Author" [3] Wednesdaykaur (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  From your own link: "world’s youngest webmaster (male)’ certification from World Record Certification Limited, London".

  "World Record Certification" is a title mill for those who don't meet Guinness requirements. A newspaper reporting on a title mill award does not establish notability. Escargoten (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When did the Wiki article said that "Onkar received the record from Guinness?" Rohit9235 (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check WP:N. A Guinness record is notable, a title mill certificate that his parents probably just bought for him is not. Escargoten (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Would removing those record titles from achievement page help? Let that Child award and satellite thing remain. Those are notable and not so-called "title mills". Rohit9235 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Like @AngusWOOF said, the child award does not confer individual notability. Nor does building a cubesat. Escargoten (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It helps remove unreliable sources, so helps further prove non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Rashtriya Bal Puraskar is awarded to 20-30 children every year. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I find a collective effort by Escargoten with a sock-puppet account EbuKedi to take down this particular article. No strong evidences apart from conspiracies and baseless allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Rohit9235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  No conspiracy present, we're trying to present well-reasoned arguments that don't support notability requirements for Wikipedia. There are no baseless allegations, we've sourced everything being discussed here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was created this morning for the sole purpose of defending this article. Tell me about "sockpuppets". Escargoten (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Oaktree's reasoning. Appears to be more churnalism. As mentioned before, being on a top 100 or a 30 under 30 list isn't notable. Rashtriya is given out to 20-30 kids a year, and it is not clear if this is equivalent to a Presidential Scholars Program (given to about 100-120 students a year), which doesn't confer individual notability. Needs references to the actual Guinness World Records site where they list kids who broke notable records. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar is equivalent to Presidential Scholars Program but is more selective in nature. Wednesdaykaur (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Wednesdaykaur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I don't know about that. Presidential Scholars is quite selective (only 2 per state). Still at the equivalent of a 30 under 30 selection. The article really needs more GNG sources. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And they get a heck of a lot more coverage than this person does. I almost think this is a hoax, the more we discuss it, the worse the quality of the sources gets. I would hazard a guess that this was created to boost whatever business the person is trying to promote.

  "Kid builds satellite at school, creates website for and about himself and claims to have won non-notable awards (that were either paid for, or are given out to many children each year)" seems to be the subject being discussed. I don't think much of any of this can be used for GNG, CREATIVE, BIO or COMPANY. That's about where this sits now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The internet confirms India has launched hundreds of cubesats since around 2017, so building one isn't that notable anymore. So I'm not sure what's left to use for notability. Smart kid in school with website? Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please also note per WP:RSP for Guinness World Records (which is marked as yellow): "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage." AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Coverage are not as per notability criteria. It doesn't have independent, reliable, secondary sources.Fails WP:GNG.Lordofhunter (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:10, 19 January 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.