Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sambit Bal

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. czar 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sambit Bal[edit]

[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)

Notability. not passed WP:NSPORTS or WP:JOURNALIST. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 21:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Journalism. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 21:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject is definitely a notable journalist and editor. Batagur baska (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Please provide a reason as opposed to saying the equivalent of "It's true because I said so". AriTheHorse 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, it clearly indicates the journalistic and editorial notability of the subject. The onus here is on the nominator to say why the subject fails notability, and that has not been done. I do not have to state a rationale, only my opinion, and please do not try to misrepresent my opinion. Batagur baska (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Batagur baska The article has no secondary sources. All of them are primary sources. If you have secondary sources that can prove him as a notable, please provide them. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Odia Wikipedia article cites a few independent sources, including this small biography by The Hindu. Left guide (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of SIGCOV. The piece in The Hindu is a press release announcing an event he spoke at, not IRS coverage.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bal is the editor-in-chief of ESPNcricinfo, which, per The Hindu, is "the world's most widely read cricket website" (link). It is perhaps no surprise, then, that a simple Google search for his name turns up tens of thousands of hits—not just the numerous bylines, but articles citing him as an authority (examples), articles directly about him (e.g., 1, 2), and interviews of him (e.g., 1, 2). Whether judged by the general notability guideline, or by WP:JOURNALIST—cited by the nominator, which asks whether The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors—the standard would appear to be met. Incidentally, while the two editors who have voted to delete have claimed, respectively, that The article has no secondary sources and that there is No evidence of SIGCOV, neither indicates what efforts—if any—they undertook to actually look for sources. As Batagur baska correctly states, The onus here is on the nominator to say why the subject fails notability, and that has not been done. See generally WP:BEFORE. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, Usernameunique, are you voicing an opinion to Keep this article? I see your criticism but not your opinion on what should be done with this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique Please, This is definitely not a widely cited.

The reference to The Hindu is just a press release.
India Times has a category with six news items. His name is not even in one of the titles. Only mentioned once or twice in the news.
India Television, E4M and Afaqs are not independent or notable sources.
Cricket Couch is just a blog. who also writes for ESPN as well.
Since he's written extensively for ESPN and other magazines for over twenty years, it's no big deal to have his name prominent on Google. His own writings do not prove him notable.

― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Television and E4M links are the same press release announcing new roles for Bal and another journalist. The "sources" are clearly marketing tools: IT: Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. E4M: exchange4media was set up in year 2000 with the aim of publishing niche, relevant and quality publications for the marketing, advertising and media professionals. JoelleJay (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not pass the GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Blogs and press releases just won't do. Let'srun (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (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.