Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikram Grewal

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. There are sources which indicate this person has sufficent notability to meet our inclusion criteria. The article, however, could do with tidying up and expanding. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bikram Grewal[edit]

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

No evidence of genuine notability either as a writer or ornithologist, no real biographical content, just seems designed to promote his book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the stub after someone presented the book to me. He does seem to be a known figure in Indian ornithology circles (see the cited interview). I have cited his book on several bird articles i edited around then. I do have some interest in birdwatching, but do not know or e-know or have any connection with Bikram Grewal, or with anyone else associated with the book.

However, I despair with all the time wasted on dealing with non-encyclopedic admin issues on wikipedia; i wish one could be left free to edit content. Every time I see a "new message" link on wikipedia, i shudder. For instance. one could have spent this time to bring up the article from stub level instead...

I find myself severely unmotivated re: editing wikipedia content compared to my zeal about 4-5 years back. Sometimes I feel - let THEM go ahead and do what THEY want ... am I becoming part of the non-wikipedia masses? mukerjee (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A handful of citations of his books (h-index of 4). Several mentions in news sources, but only passing ones. I can see no evidence of notability. The cited interview appears only to be a video clip. Perhaps the article creator can use local knowledge to provide some evidence of notability? If not, why was the article created? -- 202.124.75.162 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am aquainted with the subject and will recuse myself from this debate. The creator of this article does not need to be singled out in any way. The key question is - can the article be developed ? Are there sources - conforming to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)'s "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - the interview with Bittu Sahgal, a coauthor in some works would fail the test of "independence" here. One could contact Bikram and people who know him and add information but that would lean towards OR or worse with BLP violations. The WP:Scholar guidelines are unlikely to be applicable in this case. The guidebooks written are largely recompilations of existing information, not original research with the exception perhaps of the "atlas" of Delhi-Haryana birds - which was a collaborative effort. I am sure however that a case could be made for notability when a biography or autobiography is published. Shyamal (talk) 16:48, 21 February 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, BusterD (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Actually, Shyamal, if you know something of the subject's notability, then please don't recuse yourself. It's not forbidden to write about something you know about; it is only forbidden to use your own brain as a reference. The notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. If WP:Scholar doesn't adequately cover all types of scholars, we can do one of three things: either take the issue to the people (which I think AfD is a fine start for that in some regards, although a wider audience should be sought), be bold and make new guidelines to fit the situation that works with (and not against) the existing guidelines, or drop back 10 yards and punt this to WP:GNG (and sue me for mixing bird watching and football playing...). What could the guidelines be for guidebook writers such that it would be consistent with GNG and WP:Scholar? Would Bikram fail or pass those guidelines? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment And Mukerjee, please don't despair. One thing to remember is that this has nothing at all to do with what any of us thinks of you, nor of what we think of Bikram as a person or a birdwatcher. It has only to do with what we think of Bikram's notability. And frankly, I commend you for being bold and writing a stub for an author you have a little familiarity with. Collaboration (which successful wiki editing is) is a very hard task, especially when it is of the more organic kind (vice structured). It takes significant energy to continue. Taking short and long breaks to rebuild those energies and maintain an interest are important. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That all said, I don't think an adequate case has been made (either in the article or here in the discussion) to warrant keeping the article. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 29 February 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, B music ian 01:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems quite easy to find coverage of the subject, e.g. Call of the Wild in The Hindu. Warden (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is primarily about the Uppalapadu Bird Sanctuary. It doesn't say much about Bikram Grewal, though. It mentions his book A Photographic Guide to Birds of India and Nepal, and seems to imply that he's a recognised expert (but doesn't explicitly say so). Not enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It concerns me that the main evidence for notability in the article is two interviews with Bikram Grewal himself. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interviews published at reliable independent venues do establish notability, since they are in-depth coverage and they have been reviewed by the editorial policies of the third-party media that published them. These references by two independent sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep primarily on the basis of the article in The Hindu, one of our two usual English language RSs for India. For something like this, I don't see what else we can go by. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 March 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.