Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

At first sight, this looked as though it was a long and complex case, which would be difficult to assess. However, on more detailed examination it turned out to be a long but not particularly complex case. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "delete" commentators (7:4 not counting the nominator), the situation is as follows. Arguments for deletion have given cogent reasons why the sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Arguments for keeping (ignoring ad hominem arguments and irrelevant accusations against editors) have largely either not addressed the notability guidelines (e.g. "There are enough sources") or have, as has been pointed out, misrepresented sources. (That is not to say that the misrepresentation was deliberate, but that makes no differences.) Reading the whole discussion, it is perfectly clear that the arguments for deletion are more substantive than those for keeping: therefore the result is delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Vidyut Kale

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vidyut Kale (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this person is not enough notable, also the article is not written within WP:NPOV encyclopedia format. it's more like someone telling a journey of her. also, the sources cited are most of them are not reliable to the information. ' ShUbHaM XTalkᗙ 16:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. She has been covered by multiple surces, such as New York Times and Times of India. WP:NPOV can be worked upon. SerTanmay ( talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • While being "covered my multiple sources" is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient to establish notability in and of itself. WP:BIO requires that a subject must have received "significant coverage" in "reliable secondary sources" that are "independent" of the subject. In this case, the subject has not received coverage that can be characterized as "significant" in any sense. The NYT article, for example, includes quotes from Kale in the context of another subject altogether (domestic abuse). This means that while Kale is mentioned transitorily, she is not the subject of the coverage. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment nominator is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Flapjacktastic ( talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep subject is notable ( WP:BEFORE), the other issues should be resolved by AfD is not for cleaning up articles -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Neutral based on the analysis of sources below -- DannyS712 ( talk) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Struck the nomination, which was posted by a confirmed sock puppet ( WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America 1000 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Substantive and in-depth coverage is lacking in the sources produced above, including the NYT article and Times of India. Her primary claim to fame seems to be creation of spoof sites on two Indian politicians. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 09:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet basic WP:GNG although New York Times article is a good reference, I do not think it is enough. Peter303x ( talk) 03:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240601113957 reply
  • Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. Wikipedia is not a collectioon of random information, nor a forum for puffery. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe that she does meet WP:GNG. The Times of India, India Today and Femina sources all have significant coverage of her and her work, and the LiveMint, Telegraph, and New York Times sources add more coverage of her, which also combines to demonstrate her notability, per WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 03:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Once again, on sources: The New York Times article is about domestic violence, in general, in India and the subject is name dropped once, in a side note about refuges. The Telegraph piece is about women who blog in India, and has about a dozen of them, one of whom is the subject; Times of India has a report titled " The real housewives of Twitter", with two women in it, one of whom is Kale; LiveMint contains an advocacy piece by the so-called "Centre for Internet and Society, Knowledge Commons and the Internet Democracy Project", featuring Kale; then, there's a portrait by the feminist blog Femina. On whether these sources make a subject notable per WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG I'll leave others to comment; I already posted up my suggestion. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks very much, Gnome. I concur with your opinion and came to the same conclusion myself. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
But the NYT times article mentions her name twice, and she is not "name checked", she is quoted and is clearly one of the main subjects of the article? India Today has other articles on her where she is the subject India Today; why did you not quote these? You are not giving the subject a fair hearing. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I came to delete but having read the references (which are mostly WP:RS and are on her as subject), found more ( India Today India Today Times of India), she does at least technically meet WP:GNG. She could possibly make the technical case for WP:NAUTHOR with this: Amazon, given her blog (and thus her book) are widely covered. And remember, these are just the online English sources on her, I have not been able to search non-English soures on her. Britishfinance ( talk) 09:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, there are numerous sources, but are they sufficient to pass the muster under WP:BIO and WP:GNG? Most of these sources make a transitory mention regarding the subject, in others she is not even the subject of focus. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • But that is not true, several refs have been given above where she is the main subject of the piece; this is not helpful. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Please do not revert established users without discussing the issue on the talk page. The lead section of the article is a total misrepresentation of the sources and constitutes original research. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • You stuck an original research? tag beside two Tier 1 refs (NYT and ORF) in the lede withtout any Talk Page discussion. That is not collaborative, that is POV. Your POV "Red-Tick" list below also shows just how strong your POV is in this area. This is an Indian Hindi woman whose English-refs alone, meet WP GNG. We haven't even gotton to her Indian-RS. How many Indian-language BLPs have this amount of English-RS Refs in their BLPs? Britishfinance ( talk) 15:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I stuck an {{ OR}} template there for the simple reason that the lead section *does not say* what the sources have been saying. This is either a misrepresentation on the part of the editor who made those changes to the lead section, *or* it's original research not backed by reliable, secondary sources. Have you actually read what the NYT and ORF sources say? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as fails WP:GNG. Also, some of the passing mentions have simply been puffed up and made into 2-3 sentences in the article. The original content also does not write so much!! §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • So you ignore at least 3 WP:SIGCOVs from WP:RS sorouces (per analysis below), as well as two inclusions in two scholarly works, coverage in the New York Times, and two articles in major Indian WP:RS listing her as one of the most important women in India for online blogs/twitter? Would your WP:JNN dismissal of her BLP have anything to do with the fact that you have made many contributions to Bharatiya Janata Party articles on WP, of which she is a strong critic of (and probably why a WP:SOCK nominated her BLP for AfD in the first place)? Definately the most surreal AfD I have yet taken part in on Wikipedia. If this was a normal UK BLP with these refs this would be a staightfoward Keep. Something odd is happening here. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
All personal accusations should be taken to ANI and not be used to simple make a text wall and degrade AfD discussions. All the ifs and buts that get applied to UK articles don't necessarily apply to other regions. That's one reason why other regional editors have to fight various unneeded battles just because your country centric view doesn't fit for others. Now do not come complaining that I am dividing you with your nationality because you started that first and should first redact it. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi Britishfinance, please maintain civility and avoid ad hominem attacks on users you don't agree with. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 05:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
And yet neither of you make any contribution on the RS of this BLP. The only editor who attempted to cover the improved RS of this BLP (see below: arbitrary break), really ended up proving that she did have sufficient RS to meet WP:GNG. Regarding claims of AGF and "ad-hominem attacks", please regard WP:BOOMERANG. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Take the promotional prose and original research away and you’re left with nothing. She doesn’t meet notability standards at this time. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: I was not aware of breaking any rules. There was information that was inaccurate or outdated. According to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help#Editing_the_article_yourself I should post a request for assistance in the talk page, which I did. If editing own article is a violation, why do you publish instructions on how to do it? This is confusing for non-editors. Anyway, I will not edit any further and I guess you can undo the changes I did. To the best of my knowledge, my soliciting has not resulted in anyone coming to improve the article. If anyone contacts me, I'll tell them to ignore it. I can delete the tweet. If asking people to improve a page is a problem, that too should be mentioned clearly in instructions instead of saying ask uninvolved editors to do it, no? I've made calls for volunteers to add/edit Wikipedia from my Twitter account, including for language versions, adding pages about women and what not. How was I to know I'm doing a violation by asking if someone can fix the title of the page - which incidentally mentions my married name from years before while I'm currently married to someone else? Not a small error. Obviously, I have no idea who made the page and nor have I conspired to have it made, or I'd at least get the name right. Anyway, if the page survives, what do you recommend I do about missing information or errors? Or should I just ignore it? I can do that. Vidyutblogger ( talk) 18:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for responding, Vidyut. Yes, I recommend deleting those tweets and not doing anything that looks like you are soliciting opinions or !votes in respect of this AFD. Please allow the process to take its course. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Done. Trust me, the chances of organized political vandals are way higher than gaming editors if I post publicly. And I had absolutely not suggested voting. I haven't even voted myself! Vidyutblogger ( talk) 18:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: I don't know what notability is, but seriously, the most important thing about me isn't that I spoke up about domestic violence (or for that matter censorship) when I suffered it myself. That isn't why I get quoted. Everyone fights when they themselves are under threat. What is special about that? It is the dozens of things I speak up on, without directly benefiting from them. So I thought I'd add what matters and I gave references. That was all. Vidyutblogger ( talk) 18:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break

I thought it would be a good idea to put up an analysis of the citations contained in the article, the context in which they have been used, and some commentary on whether they are pertinent with regards to establishing the notability of the subject concerned.

  1. Femina (India), or femina.in [8]: The subject has received significant coverage in this publication, is generally considered to be a reliable secondary source. Femina magazine is owned by the Times Group, and is a publication that exercises editorial control, has a reputation for fact-checking, and is independent of the subject of the biography. Note: The article misspells the URL of the website as aamjanta.com instead of aamjanata.com, which is the actual URL. checkY
  2. The New York Times [9]: The subject of this NYT article is "domestic abuse in India", and Kale is not the subject of this article. She is quoted in the article twice and is described as a "a corporate trainer and blogger who has written extensively about witnessing domestic violence in her family as a child, and then confronting abuse — emotional, financial and sexual — in her own marriage." This is a transitory reference at best, and in the context of a different subject of discussion. Moreover, the lead section of the article of the WP biography relies on the NYT article to make an overblown claim that Kale is "widely recognized" for her "work exposing domestic abuse in Indian families". ☒N
  3. Observer Research Foundation [10]: The ORF Issue brief makes three transitory reference to Kale, in an article that primarily covers "Gender and Identity on Social Media". Again, Kale is not the primary subject of the article, nor does she receive coverage that can be characterized as "significant" in this case. As with NYT, this article has been erroneously(?) relied upon to make the same overblown claim as pointed out above with regard to the lead section ("Vidyut Kale, a stay-at-home mother and an online activist from Maharashtra, often tweets about the domestic abuse which she says she suffers at the hands of her husband. She faces as much abuse for her radical socio-political views as she gets for washing her dirty linen in public"). ☒N
  4. The Times of India [11]: This is a reliable source and its coverage on Kale is significant in my view. However, the Times of India and Femina magazine are both owned by the same publisher, that is, The Times Group. Therefore, multiple articles in publications with the same owner, while reliable sources, may not count twice towards proving the notability of a subject. ☒N
  5. Livemint [12]: While Livemint is a reliable source, Kale is not the primary subject of the article which discusses free speech on the Internet. The subject is quoted but mentioned in a non-substantive, transitory sense. Note: The article misspells the URL of the subject's website as aamjanta.com, instead of aamjanata.com.☒N
  6. India Today [13] [14]: India Today is generally considered to be a reliable source, and the coverage is significant in both cases. It will not be counted twice, however, in the context of proving the notability of the subject.checkY
  7. The Times of India [15]: The primary subject of the article is having a "Pirate Party" in India. Kale is quoted in the article, but does not receive coverage that can be characterized as significant in the article. Even if the coverage were to be considered significant, as stated above, the Times of India is owned by The Times Group and hence will not contribute towards proving the notability of the subject more than once.☒N
  8. The Friday Times [16]: This is not a reliable source and should not be used in article space on WP.☒N
  9. The Economic Times [17]: A tweet by Kale is quoted in the article, and this does not constitute significant coverage. Moreover, this publication is owned by The Times Group and should not count twice towards proving the notability of the subject.☒N
  10. The Telegraph (Calcutta) [18]: While the Telegraph is generally considered to be a reliable source, the article covers about a dozen Twitter celebrities, and while Kale is included in the list of Twitter celebrities, and also quoted, the coverage is non-significant.☒N

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  1. Response #1. Didn't you forget to mention in your summary that this is WP:SIGCOV - a key anchor of a WP BLP? Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  2. Response #2. I have included quotes from the NYT article showing she is more than a "transitory reference". This is one of the highest Tier RS covering a Hindi subject. There are many Indian BLPs without even a namecheck in the NYT, never mind several paragraphs. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  3. Response #3. That is not accurate. She is the focus of a section of this report. Anybody can read for themselves [19]. You forgot to mention that ORF is the 5th-ranked think tank in Asia. Your OR tag is the "overblown" item here. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  4. Response #4. This is getting to be a "contrived" argument to reduce her quantity of RS; which is material. Femina and The Times are vastly different publications. At least you recognize the quality of the RS. This RS is WP:SIGCOV and covers a lot on her and her family/background wider work. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  5. Response #5. At least you recognize that LiveMint is an RS. Any editor/closer reading the LiveMint article (her picture on the head of it) can see your POV here ("transitory sense"). For good measure, here is a scholarly work on the same affair as the LiveMint piece, where is the focus of a whole section and named 7 times [20]. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  6. Response #6. Oh dear, despite your tick, you fail to mention that she is the subject of an article in one of India's biggest papers - E.g. WP:SIGCOV; something you mention everywhere else when she is not the main subject (and forget when she is, per Femina above)? Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  7. Response #7. A "contrived" argument to lessen the quantity of RS on the subject; GNG does not require Kale to be the subject of every RS. Britishfinance ( talk)
  8. Response #8. The Friday Times has its own WP article which if you cared to read, has won international awards for its work. Again, POV. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  9. Response #9. A repeat of your "contrived" nature of trying to cull her WP:RS from the same corporate media groups above. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  10. Response #10. It is not "non-significant"; another POV statement, which anybody reading the article can verify. Note that this is a country of a billion people, and this article's by-line states "Prasun Chaudhuri looks at the women who matter in India's Twitterverse". Kale is in this small group. This goes direct to notability, and is from an RS. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Response to above in summary. I'm not going to resort to "Green Ticks". The above are only a selection of the refs in the article, but it at least shows that she has been covered in multiple RS (as verified by Sir Headless Nick), some of which are WP:SIGCOV (at least three), and some of which are still material Tier 1 WP:RS coverage suitable for WP:GNG. She is also covered in two academic works (per above). If that is not enough GNG, please read the article, as there are several more. And remember, this is only her English-language references!
Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I will respond to the above in more detail later as I don't have time today. Many of the above POV "Red-Ticks" conflict directly with the content of the articles themselves (e.g. she is one of two people profiled in the NYT article which is about them; she is a material section of the ORF report); however, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, the above list (which is not all refs), does highlight just how many references this Indian Hindi female subject has in English- WP:RS.
And note that this is both a woman and one who has embarrassed the Indian political establishment - E.g. she is off-limits for many Indian RS. Can add Indian-language RS for her (which can be translated), if needed. Would be a shame to lose this interesting BLP based on the above POV "Red-Tick" technique. Britishfinance ( talk) 14:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Again, you're misrepresenting sources. The NYT article begins by mentioning Nita Bhalla and Meena Kandasamy, whose stories "helped to underline the reality of domestic violence in India". Kale is mentioned much later as a "corporate trainer and blogger". And no, she's not a "material section" of the ORF report, which can be discerned by anyone at a "COMMONSENSE" level. I have no personal interest in the subject and no dog in the race, and I do not really care whether this article stays or not. I am only interested in ensuring that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability are followed. On the other hand, as the primary author of the article who seems to have spent considerable energy in its development, you appear to be emotionally invested in making sure it stays. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Now you are just making this up. I am not the author of this BLP and never saw it before this AfD. I do strongly believe in “improving” WP by “adding” good RS for cases that I think are interesting to our readers (which I do at AfD per WP:HEY). You seem to have a different objective. Britishfinance ( talk) 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Making this up? Here is a link documenting 59 revisions made by your account to this biographical article (before my edit today) since 23 March 2019. You may have come across this after it was nominated for deletion, but you have made 63 edits in total to this article and added 6,108 bytes worth of text since then, which is much more than any other user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I am not the article author - as with your POV "Red Links", you are trying to spin a view. While you have being filling up AfD, I have added more links to cover her journalism with The Quint [21], and with India Today's DailyO by Vidyut Kale. I have also noted her contribution to Palagummi Sainath's archive. Sorry, I know this does not fit with your agenda. I will get to her Hindi language refs in the next few days. Britishfinance ( talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
* Okay. Primary sources are problematic. Please read WP:PRIMARY, especially the Policy part. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Not when they are being used to demonstrate that she is a journalist for several WP-notable Indian news outlets. There are thousands of WP:BLPs on journalists that list/quote the subject's primary work as evidence (e.g. New York Times David Brooks (commentator)). This AfD is attracting odd comments; dispiriting stuff. Britishfinance ( talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Articles written by the subject herself are primary sources and may be used to support assertions regarding the subject's views on different issues. However, they cannot be used to demonstrate notability of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • These references are to her archive of articles on the websites of major Indian online publications (most which have their own WP-articles). We don't need them for notability as she already has plenty of WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and even coverage in academic journals (per my response above). However, they would help a reader on this BLP realise that she is not just a "blogger" and is well published in Indian online news outlets. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
* There are literally, tons of people out there who have written for DailyO, Wire, YouthKiAwaz and what not and do not qualify for a page. As I said, please read WP:PRIMARY. Articles written by people do not contribute to their own notability. Please don't confuse notability with the requirements of a Twitter verification. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 12:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Added material (both primary and secondary), on her involvement with the 2013 United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development working group on governance for digital media. Britishfinance ( talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Also found coverage on her 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research (p 384) [22]. Britishfinance ( talk) 22:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Would be great to get some help from WP Indian-editors about sourcing Indian-RS on her (every reference so far is English-RS). Britishfinance ( talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: @ Britishfinance: Could you please clean up your responses above? They are right in the middle of my comments and are likely to cause confusion for the closing admin. If you like, you can re-format my responses with numbering rather than bullet points, and then address each point with a corresponding response below. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: I think the format above is right as it is helpful for a reader/closer to see my response below each of your "Red-Ticks". Any other format would be confusing and require readers to jump up an down through lists. I have taken the time (a lot of time) to go through each one of the "Red-Ticks", and would appreciate the courtesy to ensure that my responses to your "Red-Ticks" are properly read and easy to follow. The goal is to have editors/closers be able to easily engage with this AfD. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I can understand you wanting to distance your "Red-Ticks" from my individual Responses to each one of them. I hope you find other areas of WP that you can more positively contribute to. Happy editing. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break II

I am Vidyut - the subject of this page. I am honored someone thought my contributions worthwhile. I have no idea of what is notable. I'm involved in a diverse range of rights related issues and not one specific thing. Usually on the organizing side, so my name is rarely in the news. For the record, Kale was my surname when I was married to my son's father - the stories of domestic abuse covered in some references. I currently go by "Vidyut" alone or "Vidyut Gore", which is my maiden name and am active in the opposition to Aadhaar.

https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/art-and-culture/ramu-ramanathan-aadhaar-playwright-play-theatre-to-be-or-not-to-be-7-5027615/ https://scroll.in/magazine/866299/even-mahabharata-heroes-are-pointing-out-the-epic-failures-of-aadhaar https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/aadhaar-a-project-replete-with-tech-glitches-and-errors

Stuff like this. Or sometimes it is just a sanity check. Like this https://www.oneindia.com/india/does-the-blue-whale-challenge-even-exist-it-could-just-be-an-urban-legend-2514605.html

Not a proper public figure related with one specific subject. I make handmade soaps and am also one of the very very few carnivorous plant growers in the country and I think the only one from whom plants can be purchased online in India - but this is not mentioned in any news I think.

I am sorry if I have not edited this correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. As if this AfD could not get any stranger. Vidyut Gore (sometimes called Vidyut Gore-Kale) is a completely different person from Vidyut Kale. When I was looking for better sources to help this article at AfD (during which I also came across Vidyut Gore-Kale who has her own "lifestyle" blog), I came across blogs discussing the " Bharatiya Janata Party troll farms" who target Kale (I couldn't resist including this in the BLP for the one quality Indian WP:RS that was prepared to go on record about this issue The Times of India [23]) because of the BJP corruption that she has exposed on her blog (which has been covered by Indian WP:RS, despite the position of the BJP party). I have marked the latest contribution above as an "Arbitrary Break II" (I have not moved it, however), to avoid it adding further confusion, as otherwise, I would have to just strike it out completely as a false statement by another likely WP:SOCK; per the nom. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't know what to say. I can tweet a specific message you suggest from my handle to prove it is me - as far as I know, there are no other Vidyut Gore, Vidyut Kale or Vidyut Gore-Kale other than me - particularly related with these subjects. The references in the article are about me, as well as the links I shared. Someone told me they found a page in my married name (which I no longer use) when searching for something I wrote, so I came over to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Does this help? https://twitter.com/Vidyut/status/1111952956293894144

Thank you all for giving me consideration, regardless of how this goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Other work in public interest includes compiling information in times of crisis. Lists of names compiled on aamjanata.com were used by the google person finder after the Uttarakhand floods and the page on google.org also hosted a link to the searchable lists on the website (though the page is now closed) [1] [2]. Information about evacuations and shelters was shared after Cyclone Phailin. While not on aamjanata.com, Vidyut was part of the team coordinating rescue efforts after the Chennai Floods. https://www.dnaindia.com/technology/report-2013-year-of-natural-calamities-how-social-media-boosted-disaster-management-1938084 Vidyutblogger ( talk) 13:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/hemant_pt/status/349224941780086784
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/hemant_pt/status/388876183489634304
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vidyut_Kale&oldid=1086108125"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

At first sight, this looked as though it was a long and complex case, which would be difficult to assess. However, on more detailed examination it turned out to be a long but not particularly complex case. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "delete" commentators (7:4 not counting the nominator), the situation is as follows. Arguments for deletion have given cogent reasons why the sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Arguments for keeping (ignoring ad hominem arguments and irrelevant accusations against editors) have largely either not addressed the notability guidelines (e.g. "There are enough sources") or have, as has been pointed out, misrepresented sources. (That is not to say that the misrepresentation was deliberate, but that makes no differences.) Reading the whole discussion, it is perfectly clear that the arguments for deletion are more substantive than those for keeping: therefore the result is delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Vidyut Kale

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vidyut Kale (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this person is not enough notable, also the article is not written within WP:NPOV encyclopedia format. it's more like someone telling a journey of her. also, the sources cited are most of them are not reliable to the information. ' ShUbHaM XTalkᗙ 16:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. She has been covered by multiple surces, such as New York Times and Times of India. WP:NPOV can be worked upon. SerTanmay ( talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • While being "covered my multiple sources" is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient to establish notability in and of itself. WP:BIO requires that a subject must have received "significant coverage" in "reliable secondary sources" that are "independent" of the subject. In this case, the subject has not received coverage that can be characterized as "significant" in any sense. The NYT article, for example, includes quotes from Kale in the context of another subject altogether (domestic abuse). This means that while Kale is mentioned transitorily, she is not the subject of the coverage. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment nominator is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Flapjacktastic ( talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep subject is notable ( WP:BEFORE), the other issues should be resolved by AfD is not for cleaning up articles -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Neutral based on the analysis of sources below -- DannyS712 ( talk) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Struck the nomination, which was posted by a confirmed sock puppet ( WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America 1000 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Substantive and in-depth coverage is lacking in the sources produced above, including the NYT article and Times of India. Her primary claim to fame seems to be creation of spoof sites on two Indian politicians. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 09:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet basic WP:GNG although New York Times article is a good reference, I do not think it is enough. Peter303x ( talk) 03:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240601113957 reply
  • Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. Wikipedia is not a collectioon of random information, nor a forum for puffery. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I believe that she does meet WP:GNG. The Times of India, India Today and Femina sources all have significant coverage of her and her work, and the LiveMint, Telegraph, and New York Times sources add more coverage of her, which also combines to demonstrate her notability, per WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 03:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Once again, on sources: The New York Times article is about domestic violence, in general, in India and the subject is name dropped once, in a side note about refuges. The Telegraph piece is about women who blog in India, and has about a dozen of them, one of whom is the subject; Times of India has a report titled " The real housewives of Twitter", with two women in it, one of whom is Kale; LiveMint contains an advocacy piece by the so-called "Centre for Internet and Society, Knowledge Commons and the Internet Democracy Project", featuring Kale; then, there's a portrait by the feminist blog Femina. On whether these sources make a subject notable per WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG I'll leave others to comment; I already posted up my suggestion. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks very much, Gnome. I concur with your opinion and came to the same conclusion myself. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
But the NYT times article mentions her name twice, and she is not "name checked", she is quoted and is clearly one of the main subjects of the article? India Today has other articles on her where she is the subject India Today; why did you not quote these? You are not giving the subject a fair hearing. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I came to delete but having read the references (which are mostly WP:RS and are on her as subject), found more ( India Today India Today Times of India), she does at least technically meet WP:GNG. She could possibly make the technical case for WP:NAUTHOR with this: Amazon, given her blog (and thus her book) are widely covered. And remember, these are just the online English sources on her, I have not been able to search non-English soures on her. Britishfinance ( talk) 09:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, there are numerous sources, but are they sufficient to pass the muster under WP:BIO and WP:GNG? Most of these sources make a transitory mention regarding the subject, in others she is not even the subject of focus. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • But that is not true, several refs have been given above where she is the main subject of the piece; this is not helpful. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Please do not revert established users without discussing the issue on the talk page. The lead section of the article is a total misrepresentation of the sources and constitutes original research. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • You stuck an original research? tag beside two Tier 1 refs (NYT and ORF) in the lede withtout any Talk Page discussion. That is not collaborative, that is POV. Your POV "Red-Tick" list below also shows just how strong your POV is in this area. This is an Indian Hindi woman whose English-refs alone, meet WP GNG. We haven't even gotton to her Indian-RS. How many Indian-language BLPs have this amount of English-RS Refs in their BLPs? Britishfinance ( talk) 15:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I stuck an {{ OR}} template there for the simple reason that the lead section *does not say* what the sources have been saying. This is either a misrepresentation on the part of the editor who made those changes to the lead section, *or* it's original research not backed by reliable, secondary sources. Have you actually read what the NYT and ORF sources say? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as fails WP:GNG. Also, some of the passing mentions have simply been puffed up and made into 2-3 sentences in the article. The original content also does not write so much!! §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • So you ignore at least 3 WP:SIGCOVs from WP:RS sorouces (per analysis below), as well as two inclusions in two scholarly works, coverage in the New York Times, and two articles in major Indian WP:RS listing her as one of the most important women in India for online blogs/twitter? Would your WP:JNN dismissal of her BLP have anything to do with the fact that you have made many contributions to Bharatiya Janata Party articles on WP, of which she is a strong critic of (and probably why a WP:SOCK nominated her BLP for AfD in the first place)? Definately the most surreal AfD I have yet taken part in on Wikipedia. If this was a normal UK BLP with these refs this would be a staightfoward Keep. Something odd is happening here. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC) reply
All personal accusations should be taken to ANI and not be used to simple make a text wall and degrade AfD discussions. All the ifs and buts that get applied to UK articles don't necessarily apply to other regions. That's one reason why other regional editors have to fight various unneeded battles just because your country centric view doesn't fit for others. Now do not come complaining that I am dividing you with your nationality because you started that first and should first redact it. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi Britishfinance, please maintain civility and avoid ad hominem attacks on users you don't agree with. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 05:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
And yet neither of you make any contribution on the RS of this BLP. The only editor who attempted to cover the improved RS of this BLP (see below: arbitrary break), really ended up proving that she did have sufficient RS to meet WP:GNG. Regarding claims of AGF and "ad-hominem attacks", please regard WP:BOOMERANG. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Take the promotional prose and original research away and you’re left with nothing. She doesn’t meet notability standards at this time. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: I was not aware of breaking any rules. There was information that was inaccurate or outdated. According to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help#Editing_the_article_yourself I should post a request for assistance in the talk page, which I did. If editing own article is a violation, why do you publish instructions on how to do it? This is confusing for non-editors. Anyway, I will not edit any further and I guess you can undo the changes I did. To the best of my knowledge, my soliciting has not resulted in anyone coming to improve the article. If anyone contacts me, I'll tell them to ignore it. I can delete the tweet. If asking people to improve a page is a problem, that too should be mentioned clearly in instructions instead of saying ask uninvolved editors to do it, no? I've made calls for volunteers to add/edit Wikipedia from my Twitter account, including for language versions, adding pages about women and what not. How was I to know I'm doing a violation by asking if someone can fix the title of the page - which incidentally mentions my married name from years before while I'm currently married to someone else? Not a small error. Obviously, I have no idea who made the page and nor have I conspired to have it made, or I'd at least get the name right. Anyway, if the page survives, what do you recommend I do about missing information or errors? Or should I just ignore it? I can do that. Vidyutblogger ( talk) 18:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for responding, Vidyut. Yes, I recommend deleting those tweets and not doing anything that looks like you are soliciting opinions or !votes in respect of this AFD. Please allow the process to take its course. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Done. Trust me, the chances of organized political vandals are way higher than gaming editors if I post publicly. And I had absolutely not suggested voting. I haven't even voted myself! Vidyutblogger ( talk) 18:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: I don't know what notability is, but seriously, the most important thing about me isn't that I spoke up about domestic violence (or for that matter censorship) when I suffered it myself. That isn't why I get quoted. Everyone fights when they themselves are under threat. What is special about that? It is the dozens of things I speak up on, without directly benefiting from them. So I thought I'd add what matters and I gave references. That was all. Vidyutblogger ( talk) 18:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break

I thought it would be a good idea to put up an analysis of the citations contained in the article, the context in which they have been used, and some commentary on whether they are pertinent with regards to establishing the notability of the subject concerned.

  1. Femina (India), or femina.in [8]: The subject has received significant coverage in this publication, is generally considered to be a reliable secondary source. Femina magazine is owned by the Times Group, and is a publication that exercises editorial control, has a reputation for fact-checking, and is independent of the subject of the biography. Note: The article misspells the URL of the website as aamjanta.com instead of aamjanata.com, which is the actual URL. checkY
  2. The New York Times [9]: The subject of this NYT article is "domestic abuse in India", and Kale is not the subject of this article. She is quoted in the article twice and is described as a "a corporate trainer and blogger who has written extensively about witnessing domestic violence in her family as a child, and then confronting abuse — emotional, financial and sexual — in her own marriage." This is a transitory reference at best, and in the context of a different subject of discussion. Moreover, the lead section of the article of the WP biography relies on the NYT article to make an overblown claim that Kale is "widely recognized" for her "work exposing domestic abuse in Indian families". ☒N
  3. Observer Research Foundation [10]: The ORF Issue brief makes three transitory reference to Kale, in an article that primarily covers "Gender and Identity on Social Media". Again, Kale is not the primary subject of the article, nor does she receive coverage that can be characterized as "significant" in this case. As with NYT, this article has been erroneously(?) relied upon to make the same overblown claim as pointed out above with regard to the lead section ("Vidyut Kale, a stay-at-home mother and an online activist from Maharashtra, often tweets about the domestic abuse which she says she suffers at the hands of her husband. She faces as much abuse for her radical socio-political views as she gets for washing her dirty linen in public"). ☒N
  4. The Times of India [11]: This is a reliable source and its coverage on Kale is significant in my view. However, the Times of India and Femina magazine are both owned by the same publisher, that is, The Times Group. Therefore, multiple articles in publications with the same owner, while reliable sources, may not count twice towards proving the notability of a subject. ☒N
  5. Livemint [12]: While Livemint is a reliable source, Kale is not the primary subject of the article which discusses free speech on the Internet. The subject is quoted but mentioned in a non-substantive, transitory sense. Note: The article misspells the URL of the subject's website as aamjanta.com, instead of aamjanata.com.☒N
  6. India Today [13] [14]: India Today is generally considered to be a reliable source, and the coverage is significant in both cases. It will not be counted twice, however, in the context of proving the notability of the subject.checkY
  7. The Times of India [15]: The primary subject of the article is having a "Pirate Party" in India. Kale is quoted in the article, but does not receive coverage that can be characterized as significant in the article. Even if the coverage were to be considered significant, as stated above, the Times of India is owned by The Times Group and hence will not contribute towards proving the notability of the subject more than once.☒N
  8. The Friday Times [16]: This is not a reliable source and should not be used in article space on WP.☒N
  9. The Economic Times [17]: A tweet by Kale is quoted in the article, and this does not constitute significant coverage. Moreover, this publication is owned by The Times Group and should not count twice towards proving the notability of the subject.☒N
  10. The Telegraph (Calcutta) [18]: While the Telegraph is generally considered to be a reliable source, the article covers about a dozen Twitter celebrities, and while Kale is included in the list of Twitter celebrities, and also quoted, the coverage is non-significant.☒N

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  1. Response #1. Didn't you forget to mention in your summary that this is WP:SIGCOV - a key anchor of a WP BLP? Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  2. Response #2. I have included quotes from the NYT article showing she is more than a "transitory reference". This is one of the highest Tier RS covering a Hindi subject. There are many Indian BLPs without even a namecheck in the NYT, never mind several paragraphs. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  3. Response #3. That is not accurate. She is the focus of a section of this report. Anybody can read for themselves [19]. You forgot to mention that ORF is the 5th-ranked think tank in Asia. Your OR tag is the "overblown" item here. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  4. Response #4. This is getting to be a "contrived" argument to reduce her quantity of RS; which is material. Femina and The Times are vastly different publications. At least you recognize the quality of the RS. This RS is WP:SIGCOV and covers a lot on her and her family/background wider work. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  5. Response #5. At least you recognize that LiveMint is an RS. Any editor/closer reading the LiveMint article (her picture on the head of it) can see your POV here ("transitory sense"). For good measure, here is a scholarly work on the same affair as the LiveMint piece, where is the focus of a whole section and named 7 times [20]. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  6. Response #6. Oh dear, despite your tick, you fail to mention that she is the subject of an article in one of India's biggest papers - E.g. WP:SIGCOV; something you mention everywhere else when she is not the main subject (and forget when she is, per Femina above)? Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  7. Response #7. A "contrived" argument to lessen the quantity of RS on the subject; GNG does not require Kale to be the subject of every RS. Britishfinance ( talk)
  8. Response #8. The Friday Times has its own WP article which if you cared to read, has won international awards for its work. Again, POV. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  9. Response #9. A repeat of your "contrived" nature of trying to cull her WP:RS from the same corporate media groups above. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  10. Response #10. It is not "non-significant"; another POV statement, which anybody reading the article can verify. Note that this is a country of a billion people, and this article's by-line states "Prasun Chaudhuri looks at the women who matter in India's Twitterverse". Kale is in this small group. This goes direct to notability, and is from an RS. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Response to above in summary. I'm not going to resort to "Green Ticks". The above are only a selection of the refs in the article, but it at least shows that she has been covered in multiple RS (as verified by Sir Headless Nick), some of which are WP:SIGCOV (at least three), and some of which are still material Tier 1 WP:RS coverage suitable for WP:GNG. She is also covered in two academic works (per above). If that is not enough GNG, please read the article, as there are several more. And remember, this is only her English-language references!
Britishfinance ( talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I will respond to the above in more detail later as I don't have time today. Many of the above POV "Red-Ticks" conflict directly with the content of the articles themselves (e.g. she is one of two people profiled in the NYT article which is about them; she is a material section of the ORF report); however, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, the above list (which is not all refs), does highlight just how many references this Indian Hindi female subject has in English- WP:RS.
And note that this is both a woman and one who has embarrassed the Indian political establishment - E.g. she is off-limits for many Indian RS. Can add Indian-language RS for her (which can be translated), if needed. Would be a shame to lose this interesting BLP based on the above POV "Red-Tick" technique. Britishfinance ( talk) 14:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Again, you're misrepresenting sources. The NYT article begins by mentioning Nita Bhalla and Meena Kandasamy, whose stories "helped to underline the reality of domestic violence in India". Kale is mentioned much later as a "corporate trainer and blogger". And no, she's not a "material section" of the ORF report, which can be discerned by anyone at a "COMMONSENSE" level. I have no personal interest in the subject and no dog in the race, and I do not really care whether this article stays or not. I am only interested in ensuring that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability are followed. On the other hand, as the primary author of the article who seems to have spent considerable energy in its development, you appear to be emotionally invested in making sure it stays. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Now you are just making this up. I am not the author of this BLP and never saw it before this AfD. I do strongly believe in “improving” WP by “adding” good RS for cases that I think are interesting to our readers (which I do at AfD per WP:HEY). You seem to have a different objective. Britishfinance ( talk) 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Making this up? Here is a link documenting 59 revisions made by your account to this biographical article (before my edit today) since 23 March 2019. You may have come across this after it was nominated for deletion, but you have made 63 edits in total to this article and added 6,108 bytes worth of text since then, which is much more than any other user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I am not the article author - as with your POV "Red Links", you are trying to spin a view. While you have being filling up AfD, I have added more links to cover her journalism with The Quint [21], and with India Today's DailyO by Vidyut Kale. I have also noted her contribution to Palagummi Sainath's archive. Sorry, I know this does not fit with your agenda. I will get to her Hindi language refs in the next few days. Britishfinance ( talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
* Okay. Primary sources are problematic. Please read WP:PRIMARY, especially the Policy part. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Not when they are being used to demonstrate that she is a journalist for several WP-notable Indian news outlets. There are thousands of WP:BLPs on journalists that list/quote the subject's primary work as evidence (e.g. New York Times David Brooks (commentator)). This AfD is attracting odd comments; dispiriting stuff. Britishfinance ( talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Articles written by the subject herself are primary sources and may be used to support assertions regarding the subject's views on different issues. However, they cannot be used to demonstrate notability of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • These references are to her archive of articles on the websites of major Indian online publications (most which have their own WP-articles). We don't need them for notability as she already has plenty of WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and even coverage in academic journals (per my response above). However, they would help a reader on this BLP realise that she is not just a "blogger" and is well published in Indian online news outlets. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
* There are literally, tons of people out there who have written for DailyO, Wire, YouthKiAwaz and what not and do not qualify for a page. As I said, please read WP:PRIMARY. Articles written by people do not contribute to their own notability. Please don't confuse notability with the requirements of a Twitter verification. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 12:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Added material (both primary and secondary), on her involvement with the 2013 United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development working group on governance for digital media. Britishfinance ( talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Also found coverage on her 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research (p 384) [22]. Britishfinance ( talk) 22:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Would be great to get some help from WP Indian-editors about sourcing Indian-RS on her (every reference so far is English-RS). Britishfinance ( talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: @ Britishfinance: Could you please clean up your responses above? They are right in the middle of my comments and are likely to cause confusion for the closing admin. If you like, you can re-format my responses with numbering rather than bullet points, and then address each point with a corresponding response below. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: I think the format above is right as it is helpful for a reader/closer to see my response below each of your "Red-Ticks". Any other format would be confusing and require readers to jump up an down through lists. I have taken the time (a lot of time) to go through each one of the "Red-Ticks", and would appreciate the courtesy to ensure that my responses to your "Red-Ticks" are properly read and easy to follow. The goal is to have editors/closers be able to easily engage with this AfD. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I can understand you wanting to distance your "Red-Ticks" from my individual Responses to each one of them. I hope you find other areas of WP that you can more positively contribute to. Happy editing. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary break II

I am Vidyut - the subject of this page. I am honored someone thought my contributions worthwhile. I have no idea of what is notable. I'm involved in a diverse range of rights related issues and not one specific thing. Usually on the organizing side, so my name is rarely in the news. For the record, Kale was my surname when I was married to my son's father - the stories of domestic abuse covered in some references. I currently go by "Vidyut" alone or "Vidyut Gore", which is my maiden name and am active in the opposition to Aadhaar.

https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/art-and-culture/ramu-ramanathan-aadhaar-playwright-play-theatre-to-be-or-not-to-be-7-5027615/ https://scroll.in/magazine/866299/even-mahabharata-heroes-are-pointing-out-the-epic-failures-of-aadhaar https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/aadhaar-a-project-replete-with-tech-glitches-and-errors

Stuff like this. Or sometimes it is just a sanity check. Like this https://www.oneindia.com/india/does-the-blue-whale-challenge-even-exist-it-could-just-be-an-urban-legend-2514605.html

Not a proper public figure related with one specific subject. I make handmade soaps and am also one of the very very few carnivorous plant growers in the country and I think the only one from whom plants can be purchased online in India - but this is not mentioned in any news I think.

I am sorry if I have not edited this correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. As if this AfD could not get any stranger. Vidyut Gore (sometimes called Vidyut Gore-Kale) is a completely different person from Vidyut Kale. When I was looking for better sources to help this article at AfD (during which I also came across Vidyut Gore-Kale who has her own "lifestyle" blog), I came across blogs discussing the " Bharatiya Janata Party troll farms" who target Kale (I couldn't resist including this in the BLP for the one quality Indian WP:RS that was prepared to go on record about this issue The Times of India [23]) because of the BJP corruption that she has exposed on her blog (which has been covered by Indian WP:RS, despite the position of the BJP party). I have marked the latest contribution above as an "Arbitrary Break II" (I have not moved it, however), to avoid it adding further confusion, as otherwise, I would have to just strike it out completely as a false statement by another likely WP:SOCK; per the nom. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't know what to say. I can tweet a specific message you suggest from my handle to prove it is me - as far as I know, there are no other Vidyut Gore, Vidyut Kale or Vidyut Gore-Kale other than me - particularly related with these subjects. The references in the article are about me, as well as the links I shared. Someone told me they found a page in my married name (which I no longer use) when searching for something I wrote, so I came over to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Does this help? https://twitter.com/Vidyut/status/1111952956293894144

Thank you all for giving me consideration, regardless of how this goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Other work in public interest includes compiling information in times of crisis. Lists of names compiled on aamjanata.com were used by the google person finder after the Uttarakhand floods and the page on google.org also hosted a link to the searchable lists on the website (though the page is now closed) [1] [2]. Information about evacuations and shelters was shared after Cyclone Phailin. While not on aamjanata.com, Vidyut was part of the team coordinating rescue efforts after the Chennai Floods. https://www.dnaindia.com/technology/report-2013-year-of-natural-calamities-how-social-media-boosted-disaster-management-1938084 Vidyutblogger ( talk) 13:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/hemant_pt/status/349224941780086784
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/hemant_pt/status/388876183489634304
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vidyut_Kale&oldid=1086108125"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE