- Kanishk Sajnani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Hello fellow Wikipedians. The above page was speedily deleted citing G4 criteria. I have a reason to believe that the latest submission had new sources/refrences & addressed the issues raised in the 2nd Nomination. Nonetheless, A New Draft on the same subject is pending review since 7 weeks now. Requesting experienced editors to look into this. Also, the title is currently unSALTED. The closing XFD contibutor cannot make edits on Wikipedia anymore. 2405:205:C865:30F3:530:C543:E970:FACD (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Close this as moot. Whatever history there may have been, there's already a draft pending at AfC. Let that process take its course. Yes, AfC is not quick, but it's not DRV's job to short-circuit the AfC queue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not accept the draft, and if it is accepted, it will undoubtedly be renominated for deletion, and in my opinion deleted as trivial coverage and BLP1E. ; it is less promotional than the original version, but has no additional evidence for notability . . (and FWIW, the XFD closer left WP in good standing--he blocked himself when he decided to leave. The reason AfC does not go quicker is the presence of so many articles like this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning mainspace the draft and list at AfD. That is clearly what the author wants. AfC is not mandatory. The draft has received a positive review. At AfD I would !vote "delete" because notability is not demonstrated by the sources currently listed, each fails because the subject was interviewed for the newspaper article, and is therefore not independent. I consider the topic to be promotional for the employment prospects of the subject, and so I believe the onus is on the author to supply the notability-attesting sources, instead of asking AfD reviewers to review all possible sources. However, the sources are interesting enough to justify a fresh proper process at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would look like to seek some clarifications regarding the inputs provided above.
1) DDG, How is it that you say the subject of the draft only has some trivial coverage? If one was to look closely, he/she would notice that 5/6 references(stated in the article) are based on the subject's work ONLY. Furthermore, WP:BLP1E is only applicable when the subject is notable for a single event, Am I correct? The article states 4 different events(at different times) for which the sources are available. I am not sure if Wikipedia:BLP2E could have been applied, even if it was a real thing. Aren't the above facts enough to tell us that the article complies with the WP:BASIC & WP:GNG (official Wikipedia policies) & hence, it is all the evidence that we need for notability?
2) SmokeyJoe, I believe that you wanted to say "therefore not Independent" in your comment above. Let me ask you if there is an offical policy that denies notablity just because the listed sources had taken any kind of inputs(as an interview or otherwise) by the subject of the article himself? Jimbo Wales believes there isn't. Please refer to his comment on this Afd.
Lastly, the reason why an AfC process takes so much time is also because of the fact that editors are afraid of putting in the effort of contributing to an article. Reason- It might get deleted in the future, despite possibly fulfilling all necessary criteria. 2405:204:830D:A3D8:5441:92B6:7979:D0FB (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent yes, thank you. I believe, and argue, that an interview is not a third party source, it’s a second party source. It is not independent. Interviews are necessarily done with the involvement of the interviewee. Often, the encouragement of the interviewee. Jimbo is wrong, and at AfD I would argue so. If the subject is notable, others we have written about him, from a distant perspective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded below to this, but I really don't think that's what is meant by independent in this context. WP:INDY is what WP:N links to. And it doesn't say anything at all like that. Nor, IMO, should it. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article listed above has references [3] & [2] that involve no direct inputs from the referred subject himself. Therefore, it should seem safe to state them as Independent Sources, right SmokeyJoe? 2405:204:830D:A3D8:CDD1:5D8B:5E09:DCF4 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The subject does not appear to have been involved in the creation of these two articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. "The core policy WP:NOT requires that it be possible to verify a subject with at least one independent source, or else the subject may not have a separate article in Wikipedia." Reference- Relationship to Notability at WP:IS
SmokeyJoe Please let us know in-case you have any other reason to believe that this article is not eligible to be in the mainspace. 2405:204:830D:A3D8:C569:8F46:CA04:B4F (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I'm a bit shocked that two editors I respect feel this doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. We have an article in India Today which is not an interview (though it is based on one). The India Times article is also based mainly on an interview, but it isn't just an interview. The The Quint I'm not familiar with, but it's article does a bit more than mention him in passing. And the BBC article seems great (though not in English). This seems to be well over the WP:N bar (unless the BBC, India Today, and the India Times aren't reliable sources). For the record, I also don't see how an interview by a reliable source is somehow not independent of the subject. WP:INDY says nothing at all like that as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel it is very simple, although it only came as a late realization. If the subject participated, actively and directly, in the creation of the source, such as by making themselves available for questions and giving answers, the source is not independent, the source is not third party.
- This is itself does not mean "doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines". It means the source does not attest Wikipedia-notability, which requires minimally two independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth.
- A source based on someone else's interview of the subject is probably independent. I draw the line at whether the source's author interviewed the subject. I think this can be best understood in terms of perspective, is the author writing from a distant perspective, or a close perspective. For notability, a distant perspective is required. This accords with the requirement (undocumented?) that Wikipedia articles write about subjects from a distant perspective.
- So WP:INDY doesn't say that a report of the author's interview of the subject is a non-independent source? I think that means INDY needs improvements. I invite User:WhatamIdoing to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say I buy that definition of independent (and, as I said, it's not part of our official definition of the term here). But if we accepted it, The India Times one is an article about someone else's interview. And the BBC one isn't an interview at all as far as I can tell. If I'm understanding your definition, that would make those sources are independent yes? Hobit (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Isn't that how I answered above, 13:31, 16 October 2018? My !vote is "mainspace the draft and list at AfD", I am no longer sure I would !vote "delete" at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I'm out of it. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are so varied that they're difficult to pigeonhole, but let me summarize the conclusions of some previous conversations:
- Typical transcript-of-interview source, and the interview is all about the interviewee: Think about a magazine that interviews Joe Film about his career or his divorce or something. This is not independent for the facts (e.g., Joe Film's assertion in the interview that he's a nice guy is exactly as non-independent as if he published the same claim via his favorite social media venue), and not good evidence of notability. (Why? They're pretty run of the mill. They provide little or no analysis. There's no fact-checking. This indicates that Joe Film has a publicist, not that anyone cared enough to really look into Joe Film as a subject. If it's print-only, the whole thing might have been handled in e-mail and written by the publicist.)
- Typical interview, and the main subject of the interview is not the interviewee: This is what you get when the radio station calls up Professor I.M. Portant and asks him to explain the upcoming holiday. This is both independent for facts and evidence of notability for the subject they talk about, not for the interviewee. This interview shows that Little History Holiday is (potentially) notable; it does not indicate that Prof. Portant is notable. Ditto for "panel interviews" on whatever the hot news story of the day is, or being the bait ("honored guest"?) for call-in radio shows.
- Special-case interviews: Here we are talking about an hour-long grilling by Barbara Walters or being featured on Fresh Air, or some other major news show that uses interviews to present some of their research. This is not independent for any facts claimed by the interviewee, but it is independent for facts claimed by the journalists, and it is evidence of notability. (Why? Notability is about figuring out whether "the world at large" paid attention to you, and that's a lot of attention. Also, they've got a team of fact checkers, top-notch editorial control, and everything we'd hope for in the best news sources. The fact that they format part of that as an 'interview' is largely irrelevant for our purposes.)
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to mention that the criteria just listed by WhatamIdoing are the ones I use also. ` DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing What you just said, makes sense. And In-fact, probably most of us do make edits/decisions here considering the above. But, I would like to ask if there are any official Wikipedia polices that help us reach at this conclusion? If not, maybe we should raise a discussion on the same at the appropriate forum? It might help improve the Encyclopedia.
Also since you're here, I would request your opinion/suggestions to move ahead at this particular DRV(since it's been already established above that the subject is notable).
DGG Still waiting on your reply regarding clarifications sought above. You said you agree with user WhatamIdoing. The subject of this article has total 6 references. 2 of them include no direct inputs & one of them is BBC(which is well-known for their fact-checking processes). Reading the above discussion, does it change your stance? 2405:205:C84B:66:9DB1:A228:7C10:C2E9 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My advice is that you might do better to add the information to an article about the online system involved. You do not need to take my advice, but that's my advice. I'm giving advice, not making decisions. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV is not the place for editors to share new opinions about the notability (or lack thereof) for an article. That said, for your personal information, I think that m:mergism is an appropriate approach for this subject. Aadhaar#Impediments and other concerns might be a good place to start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Adding that extra piece of information that you're suggesting, invites other editors to un-necessarily apply WP:PROMO. I believe the author did right by just writing a Start-Class draft for now.
WhatamIdoing Isn't m:mergism only done in the cases listed at WP:MERGEREASON? Do you think this article would pass WP:MERGEPROP when it clearly meets all the inclusion & notability guidelines at Wikipedia by itself?
- Allow Recreation by moving the Draft into Mainspace is what I would personally recommend. Wikipedian User:Ammarpad just
declined the submission stating "Interviews and passing mentions." We just discussed above that this reasoning doesn't stand true. 2405:205:C84B:66:2CE6:6E14:8018:80A3 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion strongly. This appears to be a sort of covert promotion and doesn't meet notability bar for biography. I declined the draft as I don't see how that can be meaningfful biography but the ensuing wall of text by the IP telling me that I am not experienced to review their draft shows this is upto something and think that having Wikipedia page is necessity. The highest that can be done for this trivia draft is a one-line mention in a relevant article if there's any. It has been deleted 3 times by consensus and that should be respected else we would have rethink of validity of G4 policy.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ammarpad How does merely stating that something isn't notable, make it not notable? Everyone here is welcome to visit your talk page & refer to the conversation themselves. Not once did I mentioned that you're inexperienced for AFC. Maybe you implied it by yourself? All you keep repeating is "It has been deleted 3 times already" But, my friend that was 5 1/2 months ago. New information (& references) keep getting added. Even the last AfD close has been filed for a dispute here. Please refer to the top. Today, I am standing FOR Wikipedia's official policies & guidelines. It has nothing to do with this draft particularly. IP use is merely not to reveal my original user identity on Wikipedia.
Meaningful or not, If a draft meets WP:PG it should be pushed to the mainspace. You're more than welcome to prove if it doesn't, but only by clearly stating WP:RULES that it might fail. 2405:205:C84B:F990:F066:937A:ECF9:D6EF (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability" means "qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. Per WP:N, qualified subjects have all three of these requirements:
- it isn't rejected by WP:NOT,
- it meets a relevant inclusion guideline, e.g., WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, and
- editors agree to have an article about it.
- So how does merely stating that something isn't notable, make it not notable? Well, because one of the three requirements for notability is that editors agree that it qualifies for an article, and if they don't agree that it's notable – well, then, it's not notable, "by definition".
- (All of this is somehow reminding me of the last line in WP:BFAQ#DISCLOSURE, which advises would-be subjects of Wikipedia articles not to pay anyone for writing articles because they're so likely to get deleted promptly.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked beyond belief to have just read what you wrote User:WhatamIdoing. First of all, there's no "by definition" rule that says notability ceases to exist the moment an editor thinks so. WP:Consensus is what Wikipedia hugely relies on till date. Editors are to assume WP:GF & act according to the stated Wikipedia policies. That doesn't mean someone gets a break-all-rules card & they can go act with their personal judgement anyway. Someone as an opinion? Cool. But, it's also our job to check "How?" otherwise ask "Why?"
Coming to this particular case, as-per the above discussion, I don't think anyone was able to properly inform why the article doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Thus, I hope there will be a positive & fair outcome.
2405:204:848D:477D:5C6:4BC8:DA25:BE5D (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "An editor"? No. But "the editors"? Yes. That is the nature of consensus. When "the editors" as a whole decide not to present some information in a separate, stand-alone article, then it is "not WP:Notable".
- I feel like you are badgering editors here and demanding that they present you with an explanation that will WP:SATISFY you.
- I also notice that your IP addresses geolocate to the subject's home city. On the assumption that you either are Kanishk or know him, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:WhatamIdoing You know what? If you feel that way, I am going to take a step back & relax now. Let the DRV take it's course.
If I think something wrong has been done, I'll directly take it up with the WP:AC next.
Also, please stop with your attempt(s) to falsely prove that I might me involved with the subject in a way or another. 2405:204:8201:921D:8931:890:4623:F483 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As an uninvolved party, IP, let me just point out that ArbCom is likely to reject your case outright, as it is nothing but a content dispute. There's not a behavioral or systematic issue here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
