- Shaurya Doval (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The BLP is NOTABLE and has been discussed directly in detail by various reputed media houses of India. Ht24 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion in line with the consensus at the deletion debate. Deletion review is not a place to argue or re-argue points that belong at the AFD discussion.
I would also point out that it is recommended to discuss with the deleting admin prior to making a listing here, and is mandatory to notify them of your listing; neither of these were done by our nominator. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting admin comment. This was discussed with me at User talk:Explicit#Regarding deletion of an article on Shaurya Doval. However, as explained on my talk page, many of the sources in the article at the time and presented post-deletion did not adequately address the concerns brought up at the AFD. Namely, there are a lot of drive-by mentions or not independent from the subject (because Doval is quoted in the news articles). There were at least four news articles written about the subject during or after my closure and some in Hindi that had already existed, the latter of which I could not adequately assess due to the language barrier. Analysis of the sources would benefit from Hindi-speaking editors. ✗plicit 09:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the conclusion if this is an appeal of the close. (It isn't clear whether the filer is arguing the close or wants to submit a draft.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Allow Re-Creation of Draft if this is a request to create a draft with better sources. It isn't clear whether the filer wants to submit an improved draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Stifle,
The deleting admin User talk:Explicit was notified and I have had discussions with him regarding undeleting the page. Dear Robert McClenon, I am arguing to undelete the page or allow me to submit a new draft for re-consideration as an article in line with the Wikipedia policies and terms of use. Ht24 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear Stifle and Explicit,
Kindly respond to my previous query. Thanks! Ht24 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see anything to reply to. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would request you (Stifle) to undelete the page or ask some Indian editors to review the same as per the recommendation made by Explicit.
- The reasons why Wikipedians are so leery of these sources is well explained in our article on
WP:THEHINDU) that's about him, and if you can write a draft that's not promotional in any way at all, then I think there is some chance of this nomination succeeding.— S Marshall T/C 23:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC) [reply- The article cited [1] and [2] (among plenty of other much more promotional and/or trivial sources). —
Cryptic 00:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) [reply- Thanks, Cryptic. If I was reviewing a completely encyclopaedically-written, non-promotional draft that cited those sources, I'd be willing to move it to mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 06:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear S Marshall
I found this Indian Express article but didn't mention it because I was told by one of the moderators that there shouldn't be any quotations from the person whose article is being written. Also, I didn't know that only The Hindu and The Indian Express were considered reliable sources. Can you please let me know what National Hindi Dailies would you consider as reliable because Shaurya Doval's home state is a Hindi-speaking state and many articles have been published about him in the native language? Also, would you consider the media house The Pioneer [3] as reliable? Please let me know. Thanks!Ht24 (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question! I don't know, but now that I've read our debates about source reliability in India, I think that some of the right people to ask might be User:Fowler&fowler and User:Tayi Arajakate. Maybe one of them would be kind enough to share their knowledge.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the invite. I don't know who Doval is, but if s/he has not appeared in some essential description (i.e. specifically about her/his actions) in several of the following English-language newspapers then s/he is not notable in my view. The newspapers are:
The Telegraph (Kolkata) (founded 1982) Times of India is an old newspaper, but no longer reliable. ("The Times of India, English-language morning daily newspaper published in Mumbai, Ahmadabad, and Delhi. It is one of India’s most influential papers, and its voice has frequently coincided with that of the national government."(Britannica)) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC) [reply
- PS There are probably also some magazines that are more reliable if liberal in outlook. They are Outlook (Indian magazine) and The Caravan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see, he's male. The Pioneer used to be a good newspaper but isn't any longer. (Kipling worked there long ago though he was not the cause of the newspaper's rise or fall). I don't know much about the Hindi-language newspapers, but I've been told by people in the know that they are not reliable. What shows up on Google? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS There is also The Wire (India), which seems to be reasonably reliable.
- S Marshall, the newspaper Hindustan Times itself is not known for undisclosed paid news or misinformation in its own reporting and can be used with some considerations, their issue is more with using unreliable syndicated material, being pressurised into self censorship which has happened quite a few times recently but they are much better at appropriate disclosures of sponsored (anything attributed to "HT Brand Studios") or syndicated content.
- Otherwise, I think Fowler&fowler has already provided a decent range of sources, but I'd disagree on a couple like Deccan Chronicle and Outlook if we are talking about undisclosed sponsored content particular in the entertainment industry, the former is usually good for current affairs (see if they have bylines) which this subject seems to be more about. Also note The Free Press Journal has a dying circulation and they are resorting to more sensationalism in recent times. Hindi newspapers are in even worse condition with regards to misinformation and paid news, I'd just suggest avoiding them altogether but if one really has to use them, there are some usable ones like the , although they have their own caveats.
- Regarding the AfD itself, I don't see an issue with the close, I'd endorse it. It is a case of
WP:BLP1E. The only significant coverage in reliable sources, that he has is about a controversy where he being the son of the National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval (a civil servant) is seen attending functions with ruling party leadership. It at best merits a section on Ajit Doval's page and a redirect to it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC) [reply- That sounds reasonable to me. The article had all of two sentences about this (and one of those was that the subject was suing The Wire for defamation); the rest is promotional enough that I wouldn't have blinked twice if it showed up in
Cryptic 23:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC) [reply- Yeah. I think that what we're saying is that we endorse the decision to delete that draft, but we would encourage the nominator to submit a fresh, scrupulously non-promotional draft for review. Our notability rules require at least two decent reliable sources, and I can see that those sources exist: the Indian Express articles here and here, and the Hindustan Times articles here and here (based on Tayi Arajakate's evaluation of that source as usable). With all due respect for the submission that BLP1E applies, I am quite confident that it doesn't. There are three limbs to
WP:BLP1E and all three of them need to be satisfied for it to justify deleting an article. The second limb is that the subject needs to be a low-profile individual. It's quite obvious to me, from reading the sources, that Mr Shaurya is very happy to be interviewed and discussed in the Indian national press. User:Ht24, considering that all of the previous drafts ever submitted have been adverts and not encyclopaedia articles, and considering that you're a relatively new editor who's not yet fully aware of all our rules, it would be wrong of me not to ask you: has anyone ever offered you any money or other inducement, to get a Wikipedia article published about this gentleman?— S Marshall T/C 14:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC) [reply- I don't think it satisfies the second limb, he is arguably still a low profile individual at present even if he doesn't mind or even encourages media attention, the concern remains that it is likely not possible to provide a balanced overview in a biography since independent coverage is primarily about a single event. The two Hindustan Times articles for instance are almost entirely composed of interviews and quotations from him or people associated with him. That said, I have no objection against a draft and an AfC nomination, in case it can be shown otherwise. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Those sources are spread over a period of about eight or nine months, so it's not a short-term flurry of coverage in the aftermath of a single drama: I think it amounts to sustained speculation about his political ambitions. I certainly agree that we don't have the sources for a full, balanced biography, but then, by our rules we're required to allow biographies when all we can say about the subject is that they played football at an international level for fifteen minutes in 1973. (In my view we mainly permit those because the Wikipedians who ask for them are persistent and articulate in English, which is a massive systemic bias issue, but having permitted them we really ought to permit this.)—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the valuable inputs by the moderators here. I am really happy to see the kind of environment you people give for others to learn. S Marshall, hahaha. I haven't been provided any remuneration for this discussion. But, thank you for asking.
I will try to draft a new article in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines.
Thank you for considering and your help here! Ht24 (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please know that this listing will be open for a minimum 7-day period and then an independent person will judge what action to take. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Didn't know that. Is there a maximum time limit as well? Stifle
|
