Article does not meet
WP:GNG and
WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award
Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.
RangersRus (
talk)
15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
TOI makes it under
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources.
RangersRus (
talk)
18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets
WP:AUTHOR.
GrabUp -
Talk16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note about the Times of India:
The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the
Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position.
Shahid • Talk2me18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well.
Wikipedia:Independent sources.
RangersRus (
talk)
14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I am not convinced that he meets any notability criteria. He fails
WP:ANYBIO, as the award is not exclusive, with more than 20 people receiving it. Receiving the award first or last does not make it exceptional or add to notability. Regarding
WP:AUTHOR,
The Times of India is not a review, merely a short promotional or announcement piece with no author, published by the Press Trust of India (PTI), therefore, it does not meet
WP:AUTHOR criteria. The person does not meet the
General Notability Guideline, which is already known. Also, I don't understand how interviews with celebrities establish notability.
GrabUp -
Talk09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails
WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Delete but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages.
RangersRus (
talk)
22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @
Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind.
GrabUp -
Talk02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the UK and US a national award means it relates to the scope of a whole country not that it is given by the government. For example the Oscars and Grammy Awards are national awards that are given by private organisations, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The award is not exclusive enough to establish notability. Every year, more than 20 people receive the award. Are they also notable for this award? I don’t think so.
GrabUp -
Talk16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article does not meet
WP:GNG and
WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award
Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.
RangersRus (
talk)
15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
TOI makes it under
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources.
RangersRus (
talk)
18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets
WP:AUTHOR.
GrabUp -
Talk16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note about the Times of India:
The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the
Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position.
Shahid • Talk2me18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well.
Wikipedia:Independent sources.
RangersRus (
talk)
14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I am not convinced that he meets any notability criteria. He fails
WP:ANYBIO, as the award is not exclusive, with more than 20 people receiving it. Receiving the award first or last does not make it exceptional or add to notability. Regarding
WP:AUTHOR,
The Times of India is not a review, merely a short promotional or announcement piece with no author, published by the Press Trust of India (PTI), therefore, it does not meet
WP:AUTHOR criteria. The person does not meet the
General Notability Guideline, which is already known. Also, I don't understand how interviews with celebrities establish notability.
GrabUp -
Talk09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails
WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Delete but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages.
RangersRus (
talk)
22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @
Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind.
GrabUp -
Talk02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the UK and US a national award means it relates to the scope of a whole country not that it is given by the government. For example the Oscars and Grammy Awards are national awards that are given by private organisations, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The award is not exclusive enough to establish notability. Every year, more than 20 people receive the award. Are they also notable for this award? I don’t think so.
GrabUp -
Talk16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply