Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasbir Hussain (2nd nomination)

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. While some editors feel there's inadequate sourcing directly detailing the BLP subject, the trend of the discussion since User:Beccaynr's source presentation is clearly towards a keep outcome. Since there are a number of unsourced contentious assertions in the article it might be wise to remove these assertions until they are fully cited. BusterD (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasbir Hussain

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails

WP:JOURNALIST. Assam Times sources are not reliable Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Journalism. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:INDAFD) thus this many notices is more significant than other countries. -- GreenC 14:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
His book's review doesn't make himself notable. There is no source about him. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. -- GreenC 02:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
These book reviews establish him as an author of notable works. If the subject is author of notable works, it passes
WP:AUTHOR #3. --Gazal world (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails both
WP:AUTHOR #3; the part about a significant well-know body of work does not seem fulfilled. Jeppiz (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Significant enough for me to have many reviews. And it says "co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". -- GreenC 02:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no book review as GreenC claimed. Please check the reference links properly. All are news about the books' release. The Google Scholar search shows very poor numbers of citations. Twinkle1990 (talk)

Huh? Take the first one for example. It's in the "Literary Review" section of

The New York Times Review of Books, LA Times, Washington Post, Chicago Times, etc.. all have literary review sections with original book reviews. -- GreenC 05:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So only one or two reviews? Only Two reviews enough to pass

WP:JOURNALIST? Even no coverage about the person. Just fixed two bare links. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

ACADEMIC and JOURNALISM are different from AUTHOR, only need to pass one. Your trying to set a high bar for notability when it's actually pretty permissive. Not sure why you say "only one or two reviews"... see the reviews at Wasbir_Hussain#Bibliography. You may not like all of them, but it's clearly more than "one or two". -- GreenC 05:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see only two reviews.

WP:JOURNALIST. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Your not required to agree that NAUTHOR is a valid notability guideline, but the community believe so, why it exists. Many of those links are dead and need archive URLs added. You seem to have a bias to delete this article, your not being objective and fair with the sources or the guidelines. -- GreenC 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, please don't misrepresent other users' comments. Nowhere did Twinkle1990 say that disagree with

WP:NAUTHOR. They made the perfectly valid comment that the subject here does not meet the criteria of NAUTHOR (an opinion I share). That is entirely different. Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Very weak keep. I would dispute the claim that India does not have a culture of book reviewing. I have frequently seen Indian authors with many book reviews in Indian newspapers, more than I would expect for comparable book publications in the US. We do have two proper major newspaper reviews (not just publication announcements) of Homemakers Without The Men in The Hindu and Hindustan Times. We also a have what looks like a small-press magazine review of Tarun Gogoi in Fried Eye. As far as I can tell, all the rest of the book references in the article are either publication announcements rather than reviews, or stories about related topics that happen to mention the books. I also found another review of Tarun Gogoi in what appears to be a very minor newspaper/magazine, Indigenous Herald [1]. Four reviews of three books is enough for me for
WP:AUTHOR, but only just barely. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My main concern is this is a BLP and I think the sourcing is not there. I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbiased RS about the subject. In this case I think works created by the subject may be notable, but the article subject is lacking sources for notability. // Timothy :: talk 06:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as if some of these reviews do not discuss the subject, e.g. "The author, Wasbir Hussain, has been writing on insurgency and ethnic strife in Assam and other northeastern states for more than two decades" ("Assam's widows of violence: defying all odds", Hindustan Times 14 Sep 2006), but in any event,
secondary
coverage of his work is about him. This issue seems to arise from time to time in AfD discussions, but BLPs about football players are about their football games, actor BLPs focus on their acting career - this is the work that makes them notable.

And on ProQuest, I am finding more coverage about his journalism career, including the 2022 Prafulla Chandra Baruah Memorial Journalist Award ("AAJU announces journalism awards", Assam Tribune 11 Apr 2022
ProQuest 471390212
).

There is also coverage of some political activity, e.g. ("Indigenous tag splits ‘Assamese Muslims’ wide open" The Hindu 22 July 2022
WP:BASIC notability as a journalist and author. Beccaynr (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Beccaynr you failed here. I honored you as a rescuer, but you have failed there. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per as User:David Eppstein. Four reviews are enough. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Four reviews? Out of said four, two are non-reliable sources. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By his books, he passes
Wikipedia:NAUTHOR
I want to give you list of reviews and articles about his books.

1 - Review in Indigenous Herald (reliable as a local newspaper)

2 - An article in Hindustan Times via HighBeam Research whose primary subject is his book

3 - In addition to this, Anima Guha, a notable person, said "The book, through real life stories, narrates the struggles of Assamese women who have lost their bread winning partners to insurgency or ethnic strife. Through the book Hussain has brought out the pathos, trauma, struggle and challenges of these remarkable women," see DNA India

4 - Review in The Hindu

5 - An article in The Sentinel (Guwahati) whose primary subject is his book

6 - Review in Fried Eye (seems reliable as a magazine)

And all these sources are reliable.

WP:AUTHOR says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." which has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and his book has been primary subject of article in Hindustan Times and The Sentinel (Guwahati) and also primary subject of review in Indigenous Herald (seems reliable as a public affairs magazine), Fried Eye and The Hindu
.
By doing this source analysis, I voted above that he passes
Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment There is often a choice to make between an article about an author and a work. In this case the sources are about the work, not the author. It makes sense to have an article about the work with the little that is known about the author beyond their work is in an About the author section with a name redirect. If the body of reliable BLP sources eventually has enough information about the person, an article can be written.

// Timothy :: talk 07:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP is mostly unsourced, doesn't meet
WP:THREE. Ref 1 says nothing about the article person. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

By this references, we can say that his book can be written as significant work and
Wikipedia:NAUTHOR says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." so because of his books we can say that he passes third criteria of NAUTHOR. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@LordVoldemort728 Claims fails here. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990 I didn't get the point that why you give Google Scholar link. Please Explain. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In 2023, any book review is not significant but book review in 2006 can be considered as significant as India has no culture of book reviewing. India started doing review about book from 2010s which means before 2010s, only major work by notable authors were reviewed by book critics. By this we can say that book review by
WP:NAUTHOR. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 01:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There are no reliable sources supporting
WP:BASIC notability. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Which sources are unreliable for you? And the listed sources doesn't supports GNG or BASIC but it supports NAUTHOR. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, and while there are reviews with in-depth coverage of his some of his work as an author, there also appears to be more than trivial coverage of his career in independent, reliable, secondary sources that can be combined under this guideline to help support his notability as a journalist and author. Due to what appears to be a well-recognized career, it will take some time to edit and expand this article, but it appears we have sources that help support his notability and can help develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is similar AfD. Concenus shouldn't discriminate both AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of either of the subjects does not depend on that of the other. That discussion is about someone who has written only one book with lots of reviews. This one is about someone who has written lots of books but with fewer reviews. The two discussions should be treated as independent.
Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Fewer reviews are enough for book published during 2000s in India as during that time it was not common for newspapers to write review about non notable books. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Assam, internet was launched for public use in n1998. However, book reviews were regular in print newspapers. I am sure about that. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During that time only books by major authors were reviewed by book critics. Now we can say that book reviews are trivial but at that time it was significant. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly speaking, as a daughter of parents who have contextual differences from each others, I am being able to understand many major languages of India. My father keeps 10 newspapers of different languages as old parents are fond of. Print newspapers help a lot. My father was a book reviewer since late 1980s, and at that time book writers used to give a free book and INR 500 after the review was published, even if it was wholly negative. Even so, in W#ikipedia, I don't follow my father's way instead of Wikipedia rules. I don't review or dig into other articles as I am prone to TV and Films. I just stick to TV

series and movies. If this article survives, let's to. I am not interested on
WP:BIO. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per my comment above about
WP:BASIC notability as an author and journalist. This article can be further developed with available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi @Beccaynr, I knew you as an iron hand and rescuer. But what about this? Not enough to meet the criteria as you claimed. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the
WP:BASIC
, and particularly as a journalist and author. However, at that GScholar link, there is:
a critical review of a book he contributed a chapter to: Missing Boundaries: Refugees, Migrants, Stateless and Internally Displaced Persons in South Asia, by Alan B. Anderson, Summer 2005, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 78, 2 (full text available via Gale, "Wasbir Hussain addresses the outflow of Bandladeshi migrants into neighbouring areas in northeastern India")

what appears to be a reference to him in the "Economic and Development Policies in the North Eastern Region and the Current Condition" chapter of the Northeast India and Japan (2021) book that I have not searched the T&F database for to determine if I can access, although I have previously found this database to be a good source for Assamese writers. The quote I can view on GScholar is "… Wasbir Hussain observed that the use of the term tends to ignore the distinct identity and sub-nationalist aspirations of diverse tribes, customs, and cultures and, very importantly, the …".

"Illusions of Empowerment: Television News and Assamese Identity", in Television & New Media, Vol. 16, 4, 2015, with a quote visible in GScholar: "… Wasbir Hussain, a well-known and respected Assamese news reporter, was hosting a popular show on the television channel News Live. He said he overcame these limitations by …"

"Spectacles of empowerment: election and news coverage in India’s marginalised states" by the same author of the above source, with an in-depth overview of the history of news, including two paragraphs of interview at p. 182 with "Wasbir Hussain, a prominent and respected face of Assamese news television, hosts a popular show on the television channel News Live" and appears to quote his work at p. 166.

Narayanan, Raviprasad (2014) "India and South Asian Security Issues: Problems Aplenty, Solutions Hazy, Prospects Unsettling," Journal of International and Global Studies: Vol. 5 : No. 2 , Article 9 - another book review, describing Hussain's contribution at p. 118.

And there appear to be further sources that refer to and quote him - these results are farther back, because his own writing fills about seven pages of results, but he also appears to be regularly cited in a variety of scholarly works.

Beccaynr (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @
WP:AUTHOR. For [[[WP:AUTHOR]] subject person clearly fails at this point. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur that four reviews are enough to show notability. The reviews establish the subject as an author of notable works. Thus, it passes
WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:THREE? Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete: Obviously fails
WP:GNG, and additionally the editor who created this page has COI, So this article becomes promotional in nature. (Redacted). QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@QueerEcofeminist: please note that (Redacted). Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the
WP:AUTHOR clearly fails in here. Twinkle1990 (talk) Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Twinkle1990, Sorry but I don't know why we need to redact that username? I am unaware of any such process, please let me know why we need to redact, So that I can take care of it from now onwards. thanks QueerEcofeminist🌈 02:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QueerEcofeminist I haven't redacted. Administrator did it with a note "inappropriate". Probably we should stick to the prime issue, not to go for other factors. Twinkle1990 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
made a connection that has not been given on-wiki. You are of course welcome to suspect that a user has a COI (and state as such), but saying "this editor has a COI because they are XYZ person in real life" is not okay. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you would like further clarification (mainly to avoid pulling this discussion too far off-course). Primefac (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Primefac, no it's fine now I understood making speculations is problematic and the venue is wrong too. Thanks QueerEcofeminist🌈 15:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
WP:AUTHOR Lightburst (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is essentially no discussion of whether multiple reliable, independent sources cover this individual in reasonable depth. Discussion of "WP:AUTHOR" or the like is unhelpful without that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems fine to me with the sources presented. It's not a slam dunk, but it's at least 4 decent pieces that cover the person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Points above and sourcing in the article indicate that there are multiple independent reviews of his work, so my assessment is that he passes

WP:AUTHOR. CT55555(talk) 06:07, 22 March 2023 (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.