Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Pugalia

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 keep. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 21:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Pugalia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find coverage of this journalist (as a subject) in multiple reliable sources. A poorly-sourced BLP, it seems to have been created as a (self?)promotional exercise. pablo 15:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is an editor in chief. --131.123.124.42 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of people all over the world are editors-in-chief. It's just a job title. If you can find some independent sources that state he is a superlative editor-in-chief, if he has won national (or international) awards for the excellence of his chiefly editing, then that might be relevant. We do have articles on patent-office clerks, civil servants, customs officers and so on— but they've usually done something else too. pablo 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, then the solution is to have thousands of more articles...--131.123.124.39 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a solution — if you want to suggest it I think it should have a wider audience than this though. Maybe Policies and guidelines. pablo 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we could have 7 billion articles since every human has a measure of notability just for being alive, but it's easier to keep the bar where it is than to lower it and write 6.995 billion new articles. It's reasonable to have a cutoff, and the cutoff has been extensively developed and debated over a period of many years. DOSGuy (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written as a biography ,with colours not a wiki material for sure Shrikanthv (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?--131.123.124.39 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Fails WP:GNG. Fails Google test too. Just being a chief editor of some channel alone cannot be a criteria to be in wiki. The tone of the article is too much promotional. Not an article for Wiki. Probably the person may try to come back after getting some strong references meeting WP:RS. Till then delete. -- Bharathiya (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Please remember to keep comments focused on Wikipedia's deletion policy, and in particular whether or not the subject fulfils the notability guidelines for biographies. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and is not notable under WP:CREATIVE. Cited sources are not sufficiently independent of the subject, and a search for suitable alternatives turns up only WP:ROUTINE coverage of industry moves and so forth. There is also an element of WP:SPIP here. --Batard0 (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. It's still on the fringes of Wikipedia's notability criteria, but given that he's won at least two significant awards and the references have been improved slightly, I think it's best to err on the side of inclusion at this stage. --Batard0 (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads like an advertisement, or perhaps an obituary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a site for posting resumes or vanity pages. DOSGuy (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Advertisement like stuff removed/moderated; subject notable and well known TV anchor cum editor. This article has encyclopedic value. Rayabhari (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per above poster, I have removed the advertisement-like stuff and marked where references are necessary. Previous voters may wish to review the changes to see if it changes their votes. DOSGuy (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the state of this article is clearly attrocious, a poorly written article that is self promotional is hardly a good rationale for deletion. The subject is a prolific Indian journalist who has been active for 30 years for a variety of notable media organizations in India. Clearly satisfies wikipedias notabiliy requirements for journalists.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSo far the reliable sources appear to be no more than a few sentences here and there--appointed head of this, moved to that, etc. No awards, no books, and most of all no substantial coverage of him as an important figure in the field (such as an article about him). Pending more sources, this doesn't appear to me to meet the GNG. Willing to reconsider if better sources are presented, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually he was given major awards in his nation. See this article and this article.4meter4 (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That helps--you might consider adding this information to the article as well as here. But neither of these awards seem to even have a Wikipedia article about them, which isn't a good sign for their significance. More importantly though, I'm still not seeing any substantial coverage of the subject himself, just a few passing mentions of his name. On a side note, there's really no need to bold single sentence comments; I promise I'll read to the end of the sentence without your emphasis. =) Khazar2 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these awards are not on wikipedia are more a reflection on the Western centric emphasis of the english wiki rather than a reflection on the awards themselves. Many notable topics in Eatern cultures lack coverage, and to some extent wikipedia's notability guidelines are more likely to exclude topics from Eastern cultures where there are not as many media outlets, published authors, awards, etc. when compared to Western cultures. But that is a bigger issue beyonf this single AFD. As to adding the content, I'll do so if the article passes the AFD. Otherwise, why bother?4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I improve articles in AfD if I can. The effort might save the article. DOSGuy (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on all of your comments above, the article was revised and it includes a notability statement, better organization, further citation, and new material. Currently, its assessment is stub. The most recent changes should merit a reconsideration of a nomination to delete and possibly a raise in status from stub to start. Thank you all for your helpful comments! Crtew (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional sources now seem to me just on the right side of notability requirements. Still not much in-depth discussion in the ones I can access, but enough of them to change my mind. Thanks, Crtew, for the expansion. Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the links are real and I find this as notable. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2012 (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.