Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 11

Parikipandla Narahari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(1) The deleting admin wrote "Yogesh Khandke comment about the sourcing is rebutted successfully." I don't see how they were rebutted successfully. (2) I asked closing admin for clarification as step 1 of review procedure. He has not provided it so far.diff (3) My arguemnts are as follows: My comments in support of notability have been: The subject is notable:

1. For being called by Tehelka as "Gwalior's game changer" and amongst one of India's few civil servants who are using websites like Twitter and Facebook to interact with citizenry to solve their problems, taking cognizance of these efforts Internet and Mobile Association of India has awarded him for the same. (comment made on 13:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC))
2. For being called by Hindustan Times a hero of sorts (comment made on 17:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC))
3. The reply during Afd was "An author of non-notable books who has received three non-notable awards, two of which are sourced (along with most of the rest of the article) to what seem likely to be self-written biographies hosted on government websites. (comment made on 14:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC))
4. User:Secret's closing comments were, (as mentioned above): "...Yogesh Khandke comment about the sourcing is rebutted successfully."
5. I feel there has been an error of judgement in considering that there has been a successful rebuttal. Could this be reviewed please?.
   1. Neither Hindustan Times nor Tehelka are related to the subject.
   2. By what yardstick is the CRISIL award to be a non-notable one?
   3. The rebutting comment was made before the second evidence posted.
6. Would it possible for a copy of the deleted article to be made available to me please, perhaps paste it into my sandbox.

In my opinion the closure is an error of judgment and needs review. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, as there was none.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding nomination statement point 5.2, linked is a corporation article without coverage of awards. To assert notability of an award, I would expect to see explicit coverage of the award, whether on a stand alone page, or at least a section, and with coverage of the recipients. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisil award links[1][2] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Those links say nothing about wikipedia-notability of the award. There is no commentary on the significance of the award. To measure the notability of an award, you need to count independent commentary of the award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I present a search result for Crisil awards for excellence, the award has mention in multiple reliable sources.[3] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mere mention does not speak to notability. Notability requires that some reliable third party says something about the award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well obviously it isn't the Noble prize, but CRISIL is a notable rating agency, I consider any award that it gives, on a national level is notable, the award finds mention in RS. (I understand what you mean, perhaps, however I haven't searched hard enough.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (1) This] source discusses CRISIL and considers the award an import mile stone in its growth. (2) This has the award being presented by
  Chandrababu Naidu the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh. (3) The award is a joint action, the other partner being the Urban Development Ministry of the Government of India, it is a government partnered award.[4] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn to NC. I think this is a NC case, but I could see deletion being a reasonable outcome. But the admin hasn't elected to respond (AFAICT) to YK's comments on their talk page and those comments seem reasonable so I don't see how deletion has been justified. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from closer When I read the debate, I felt there was a strong consensus to delete. The first two keep commentators were because the article was restored for apparently no reason and sent to AFD and didn't even discuss the subject himself, so I ignored them. The rest of the comments was the usual if Narahari meet GNG or not, which there was consensus to delete in the AFD but Yogesh Khandke brought up some sources near the end of the debate, which made the closure trickier, and I misread the rebuttal. I personally see the article as a obvious
  WP:BLP1E but considering the mistake I made evaluating the two sources YK bought up, and all the confusion in the AFD about the restoration, and the last minute change of consensus, a Relist is the only solution here. Secret ^account 05:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This source says that Narahari conceived Ladli Laxmi Yojna (A Scheme which was widely appreciated and awarded). India's leading Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar awarded Narahari for Creating Socio-Economic Impact through Innovative Implementation. Dainik Jagran reported that he working on a new system called Revenue Department which helped many land related disputes; http://post.jagran.com/revenue-department-will-provide-you-all-land-related-information-in-15-days-1334142455. Therefore I don't think this article is now BLP1E. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]