Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saagar Enjeti

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 redirect to Rising (news show). It seems like we have three main stances here:

  • 6 delete counting the nominator, with concerns about the lack of coverage by independent reliable sources and not meeting WP:GNG and that much of the sourcing is from low quality sources. And that many of the sources are from non-independent sources, including those authored by the subject.
  • 8 keeps mostly with (however contested) cites towards sources about the subject and that more sources will arise with their book publications, and that they have online notoriety/are working with well known commentators/political candidates. Some don't give arguments at all or ask that others find sources.
  • 4 redirect and some more who are OK with redirect as alternative to either keep or delete, mainly with similar arguments as the delete camp and pointers towards WP:TOOSOON. In addition there are 1-2 comments endorsing draftification.

This headcount does not make a clear consensus in either direction, so we need to give particular consideration to the arguments. It appears like the delete camp has the better arguments, as many keep arguments are not based in policy/guideline and all the sources have been contested on the grounds that they don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV (although some contestations are vague). On balance, this makes a rough consensus that the article cannot stay, but it's not clear whether it's delete or redirect that is the preferred outcome. Per the WP:ATD procedural policy and the fact that some people hint at the topic perhaps becoming more notable in the future, this is a "redirect" outcome. Further discussion on whether to keep the redirect should be handled at WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saagar Enjeti[edit]

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

Saagar Enjeti (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)

No independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, does not meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Yet to meet WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rising (news show). Enjeti does not presently satisfy the WP:GNG, but could in the future. Zingarese talk · contribs 06:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that redirecting is reasonable. signed, Rosguill talk 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. See Talk:Rising (news show) §Merge – wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage is a subjective call, but:
    Outside sources have written about him, e.g. Saagar Enjeti deserves better than Jim Acosta's scorn
    Here's another source recently writing about his tweets
    I suppose not as notable as his co-host Krystal Ball, but he does get mentioned in such articles.
    FWIW, I'll bet that this is his father, Prasad Enjeti. (notable power electronics engineers don't get much notice from Wikipedians)
    Might wait to see whether there are any reviews of his upcoming book, due for release on February 8, 2020. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think those listed sources contribute much toward GNG. If the discussion were leaning delete, your point about his upcoming book would make me lean toward draftify, but if the discussion closes as redirect then there's no need and the article can be restored once coverage is available. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the above comment. Apart from articles written by Enjeti himself, there are a few more sources that this article could use. And I agree that the February book release is likely to lead to a few more. Wholesale deletion is a strange idea so I interpret this as an AfD to turn the article back into a redirect to The Hill. Connor Behan (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, "the Daily Caller's Saagar Enjeti captured evidence" of socks in the White House briefing room! Is this an indication that the room was infiltrated by a Wikipedia editor who wanted to remain anonymous?! wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The additional sources provided here appear to just quote Enjeti's Twitter without saying much of anything about him. signed, Rosguill talk 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Along with co-hosting a program alongside a well-known commentator/fmr political candidate, Enjeti is progressively gaining in online notoriety. --- Evans1982 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Evans1982, could you provide evidence of this notoriety in the form of significant coverage? signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit) Same as above. Rdzogschen (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rdzogschen: you've got to provide a rationale, dude. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr., Sir, friend, brother, etc. would be fine. Never dude. Rdzogschen (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rdzogschen, ok, my sincere apologies. Zingarese talk · contribs 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit) I agree with comments above to keep. Mark as stub. Fostrdv (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Stub done. Rdzogschen (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fostrdv, what is your argument to keep this article? Zingarese talk · contribs 18:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still stand by my position to redirect this article to his show. Presently, Enjeti lacks the significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources to qualify for an article of his own. I have looked at the sources provided by Wbm1058 and Connor Behan and I am convinced that they are not enough; Washington Examiner is of questionable reliability and the Townhall source I don't believe qualifies as significant coverage (and Townhall is also of questionable reliability). Same with the Federalist source (a very partisan publication of dubious notability), Vice (not significant coverage at all) and Spectator (ditto). I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON at this stage. Enjeti may certainly be notable in the future; I regularly watch Rising and am fairly impressed by him. Its also true that he has a book coming out soon, but he co-wrote it with Ball and I want to wait to see if there will be any reviews. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: TOOSOON by days, Ball + Enjeti present the book in February (with Dore), and if it gets reviews in RS… €0.02: –84.46.52.79 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We cannot do proper Wikipedia articles on subjects if there's no usable RS coverage, and if it has to be cobbled together from non-RS, primary sources and off-hand mentions in the lowest quality RS (e.g. there's one RS in the article and it's a Politico newsletter that has one sentence about a forthcoming book by Enjeti and Krystall Ball, the latter of whom is actually notable). Some commenters above cite rubbish sources as indicators of notability, such as The Federalist, the op-ed pages of the Washington Examiner and Townhall.com, which would never be accepted as RS in articles, and should thus not indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Federalist would never be accepted except it has been on several high traffic articles. The reliability, from what I can see, is comparable to Fox. Connor Behan (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient RS coverage. KidAd (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft for potential improvement to the point where it is sustainable in mainspace. BD2412 T 04:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Hill.TV has 231,000 subscribers on Youtube. The article proposed for deletion has had 14,500 views in the last month. "Rising" makes up the great majority of the Hill.TV's content making it one of the largest online news platforms in the world. Should we only use the metrics of outside coverage or does web presence have any pull? This may be outside the scope of low-level editors, but is it not ageist to ignore the metrics that are most important to young people? Mistipolis (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I won't try one of the largest online news platforms in the world on Kim Iversen when she has 231K subscribers (she reached 200K two days after The Hill.) AFAIK there is a consensus to not abuse stats for notability, cf. WT:Wikipedia doesn't care how many friends you have#What is a relevant number of social media followers in BLPs?. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about a news show started by a credible newspaper that regularly has on notable people including serious presidential candidates. This isn't some youtuber in their basement. That said even if you're disinclined to pay attention to social media numbers (a stance I disagree with) I think you should probably still pay attention to Wikipedia page views. The number of views of this page speaks to there being a public want. Mistipolis (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The question to ask when considering the deletion of an article isn't whether people want to find an article, it's whether there is enough coverage in sources to ensure that we can write a comprehensive and neutral article without resorting to original research. As it stands, the article is cobbled together from primary sources and trivial mentions of the subject (i.e. original research), such that we are actually doing a disservice to anyone trying to look up this subject, and we have thus far collectively failed to find any better coverage that would allow us to improve the article. signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that clarification, Rosguill. Are you saying that bios from the Hudson and Steamboat Institutes don't count as credible sources for talking about the subject? This is an honest question. Mistipolis (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say that they're unreliable, as they may be usable for some claims, but I would say that they are not independent of the subject, and thus don't contribute toward meeting GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 02:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, you instigated this AfD, I am the author of the original article. It seems to me that there's not a great consensus on deleting the article outright. I wonder what you would think of tabling this discussion until Saagar and Krystal's book comes out on Feb. 8? If at that point there isn't significant RS coverage I will be happy to concede to your greater experience on this issue. Mistipolis (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote is converting to a redirect, as I stated above. If more coverage is available in the future, any editor can retrieve it. signed, Rosguill talk 05:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, from my perspective all the information presented in the article is backed up by credible citations and we're not in danger of misinforming Wikipedia readers. If we're worried about the subject being sufficiently notable, 600,000 views a day [1] should probably negate that. If we are going by simple vote "Keep" seems to be winning out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistipolis (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions are not votes, and are decided based on the strengths of arguments as well as their grounding in Wikipedia's policies. There's a plethora of weakly argued keeps, which is unsurprising for an article about someone who clearly has a fan following.
    As for the dangers of original research, spreading strictly false information is not the only concern. We rely on coverage in secondary sources to assess due weight. In the absence of such coverage, there is no way to determine how much attention or emphasis should be given to various aspects of the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said and all. But what my fellow keepers are trying to say, without saying it, is we should avoid using rs and notability as smokescreens. Ex. Jamal Simmons is a progressive commentator at The Hill and his article is as equally vacant as Enjeti's. However that article has not been subject to AfD (as far as I know). So, I'm hopeful the "votes" versus "arguments" above was not intended to be read as "palpable personality versus not palpable." </comment> … Propose merging Enjeti's article with Rising. That may be the better solution, etc. Wanderer0 (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamal Simmons appears to have been created before we started doing new page patrols, which is a more likely explanation for its survival thus far. If you think that it doesn't meet notability standards, by all means nominate it for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 07:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, the article is very short and is basically just a list of the subject's notable accomplishments. As far as I can tell it is the most comprehensive and well researched on the internet. It's up to you if you want to take it down, but it is clearly filling a role. As an aside I haven't seen a real consensus around credibility and likes, views, etc. There is an article by a random editor expounding their personal views on the subject, but I've had trouble finding policy or a consensus. If you could point me to such a policy I would appreciate it. Mistipolis (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mistipolis The only thing the Jamal Simmons article has going for it is the new york times writing about him and his marriage, whereas Saagar Enjeti has nothing like that about him. Notability can be established if there are interviews with him about him if he hasn’t done anything notable. Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW that kind of marriage coverage is trivial and doesn't count toward anything, even if it's in the NYTimes, but we really shouldn't be hashing out the minutiae of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here. Any further discussion of Jamal Simmons should be held on that article's talk page or in a deletion discussion for it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I raised Simmons to make a simple comparison, to which Rosguill kindly made an appropriate suggestion. Let's focus on Saagar. With love, etc. Wanderer0 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well.[1] –84.46.53.165 (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/sanders-and-the-left-media
  • Delete. It’s simple... This subject is using sources from where he has worked so those don’t apply. As a journalist he has done nothing that would make him notable. No news worthy sources which are national write about him. If this isn’t deleted then every journalist get an article about him or her. Australianblackbelt (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Agree with Australianblack belt, this person is using his own articles as references and he only gets a passing mention in the others. Looks to me like the subject himself as desperately tried to create the article, his done nothing noteworthy he doesn’t even have a local rag writing about him. Jaxbrother (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Los Angeles times is a passing mention as it also writes about Young Turks. I admit I like Saagar for supporting Bernie Sanders on his show but his Wikipedia article is far from meeting notability guidelines. Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the show's page. Almost all the claims of notability are primary sourced - there isn't independent third-party coverage to show that these claimed notable activities are actually notable or have been noted. If the primary sources were cut, this page would hardly exist - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Rising (news show). It is a kind of WP:TOOSOON. I can see the article's content has some promotional wordings. Seems to have breached WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As elucidated above.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should not be deleted. It has merit. Seek additional sources and add the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0C2:DBE3:EDA9:EB51:F880:E152 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Folks here tried that, what did you find? I found a self-published video with the book on "Amazon rank 6", but independent reliable sources won't cover it before February 8. Andrew Yang is one of the three "official" Amazon reviewers. Putting all efforts into the book could end up as BLP1E (notable for so far only one event). –84.46.52.25 (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2020 (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/Saagar_Enjeti&oldid=938617628"