Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayank Shekhar

Add links
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.

The result was no consensus‎. Most 'Keep' views failed to address the notability-related shortcomings raised by the 'Delete' views. However, after three weeks, support for deletion did not achieve consensus.

Note to some participants: a "Note to closer" that merely rehashes points of P&G, or attempts to summarize views expressed by others, adds nothing to the discussion, and is generally ignored by the closer. If you find new information that is pertinent to the discussion, such as evidence of canvassing or COI, kindly post the link or diff, and leave it at that. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayank Shekhar

[edit]

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

Mayank Shekhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

If the award is judged significant enough, he could meet WP:ANYBIO. If his books have received coverage that is judged sufficiently significant (including the review you mention, or https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/name-place-animal-thing-of-bollywood-trivia-popular-culture/articleshow/52685080.cms or https://www.spectralhues.com/news/bookreview-name-place-animal-thing-mayank-shekhar/), he might also meet WP:AUTHOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 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 - Talk 16:12, 8 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 • Talk2me 18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    interviews are primary sources that needs to cite the truth of the statements unless attributed. RangersRus (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RangersRus: Didn't undersrtand what you said here, please explain. Shahid • Talk2me 13:04, 4 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]
@Shshshsh: The award “Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards” is given to over 20 people every year. Do you think this is an exclusive award that can make recipients notable? GrabUp - Talk 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup: Yes; there are many notable awards which award several groups of individuals. Shahid • Talk2me 12:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Hey, Thanks for the reply. Can you please name some! GrabUp - Talk 12:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup: Yes, off the top of my head - the Padma Shri. Not comparing them in notability, but just giving a direct answer to your question. Shahid • Talk2me 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Padma Shri does not establish notability. I wanted the names of some awards that establish notability and are given to more than 20 people every year. GrabUp - Talk 15:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No award in the world "establishes" notability in and of itself; notable awards indicate notability, they attest to the recepient's notabiltiy. The notability is established by the professional achievments the award was given for. Shahid • Talk2me 09:38, 19 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]
    Note @RangersRus is the nominator of this AfD and appears to have voted twice (assuming good faith), both in the nomination description and in the comment above. Shahid • Talk2me 12:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not votes but opinion based on the unreliability of the sources on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RangersRus: Then you should not have highlighted them in bold. Shahid • Talk2me 09:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see it as problem. Two closers already went through the arguments and understood it as opinion. RangersRus (talk) 11:30, 19 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 - Talk 02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grabup: Please assume good faith on other participants here. The fact that they do not agree with you doesn't mean their arguments are not "good". This is an AfD where no one is obligated to satisfy his voting peers. Shahid • Talk2me 12:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are not obligated to satisfy me, but to build consensus, they should explain further why and how the subject meets some notability criteria. Being a "National award" does not establish notability, such as the Padmashri Award, which is a national award, but the majority of the recipients are not notable and don’t have articles. Giving low effort votes does not really help to build consensus in every AfDs. GrabUp - Talk 13:01, 18 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]
      For UK and US, there is national award for films National Film Awards UK and National Film & TV Award USA. In India, for journalism, Press Council of India honours the journalists selected by the Jury/Council for having excelled in various fields on the occasion of National Press Day. This is national award. RangersRus (talk) 15:42, 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 - Talk 16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, they might be notable. The UK Awards are given by a private organization. National, especially in the Indian context, means the recepients may be chosen from across all states and not just locally. The Ramnath Goenka Award is given by a notable organization which has existed for almost a century. The award might not necessarily establish notability in and of itself (although I think it should), but everything else about the subject certainly does. Shekhar is also a member of the CBFC, he writes for notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage. I can't see the harm in having a Wikipedia article on this person even with half of these achievements. I do admit I'm an inclusionist. :) I strongly believe WP can and should cover as much as possible. The spirit of WP, as I think of it, lies in its ongoing goal to become a robust center of knowledge, where minimal restrictions are put on inclusion of information. Shahid • Talk2me 13:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Shshshsh: Being a member of the CBFC does not meet any notability criteria. Writing for a notable publication does not meet any notability criteria. Hosting big stars in a program or interviewing them does not meet any notability criteria. Lastly, his book has not received enough media coverage to be considered notable, nor have his books been reviewed by any notable media organization that would allow it to meet WP:AUTHOR.
      I want to ask where it is written in Wikipedia’s notability guidelines that being a member of the CBFC, writing for a notable publication, hosting big stars in a show, or taking interviews makes a person notable. I don’t have a problem with your intent to include everything on Wikipedia, but there are rules that should be followed. Why keep a subject that has not met any notability criteria set by Wikipedia guidelines? GrabUp - Talk 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He does meet notability guidelines, because all these positions do not work individually but as a group. Going by your opening sentence, no critic/journalist is notable. Anyway, we should agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me 09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Shshshsh: My comment was: Journalists or critics are not inherently notable; they have to pass some sort of guidelines, such as GNG, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR, or similar, for an article in Wikipedia. You said, "because all these positions do not work individually but as a group. Going by your opening sentence," where is it written that these types of works or positions make a person notable, whether in a group or individually? GrabUp - Talk 11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:N, WP:GNG is my answer. We wouldn't have known all of this had this not been published in reliable sources. And above all, common sense is an option. I will reiterate for you: he has won a notable award, he is a member of the CBFC, he writes for several notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage, he is a film critic whose reviews are being quoted, and his work has made him the interviewee, as we can see. If you're not convinced, which I think is going to be case anyway, let's agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me 09:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      GNG requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, and I am unable to see any. GrabUp - Talk 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Three awards are now reported by reliable sources (another one added just now). I can't think of many non-notable writers/authors whose books get a full review on India's most popular entertainment portal. Shahid • Talk2me 22:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can’t see the full review. These are promotional. The Asian Age article contains only statements from the subject and is not an independent article. The newly added source The Print is a press release and is not at all independent nor reliable per WP:PRSOURCE. Please share your “reliable sources” here. GrabUp - Talk 01:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether you can see it or not, it's there. The Asian Age is a legitimate interview. I really don't get the analysis here of independent or not given it's a film critic we're talking about. A notable one, of course. With all due respect, I don't accept your subjective analysis of the sources. Shahid • Talk2me 09:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How do interviews start to pass GNG? To pass GNG, independent in-depth coverage of the subject is required. How is this a subjective analysis? The article is just full of quotes from the subject or what you call interviews. Interviews do not help to establish notability at all. Read WP:INTERVIEWS, which states, "They may be used for sourcing some facts amid a mixture of sourcing types, but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have." The subject actually does not have independent sources. GrabUp - Talk 10:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly - it's not the only kind of sourcing. Shahid • Talk2me 10:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Where is independent source then? GrabUp - Talk 11:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I've said enough on this. I'm really busy. You and the other user haven't managed to convince anyone except each other. Shahid • Talk2me 11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Interestingly, The Print’s ANI press release was provided by SRV Media, a PR company known for sponsored promotional publishing. Therefore, this article falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and cannot help meet GNG. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable, independent secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 02:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You must be kidding - The Print is an online newspaper and the article cited is just used for the overage of the awards. All you said here is mere speculation. Shahid • Talk2me 09:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That shows you have not seen any articles and are just arguing blindly. If you read the end of the article, it is clearly mentioned, “This story is provided by SRV Media. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/SRV Media)” And since you are acting like you don’t know anything, here is what SRV Media’s website says: “A well-written press release informs and positions your brand as an authority in your industry, enhancing credibility and trust among your audience.” GrabUp - Talk 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please use WP:RSN to gain consensus pertaining to the label you're using. For the rest, let's agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me 10:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I went to RSN about the source he wanted and mentioned that he wants to establish notability with that article, he immediately came to my talk page telling me to remove the word. Closer can see this. He says he has no time when I ask him to provide an independent, reliable source but has time to argue and tell people to remove things. After all this, he agreed at RSN that the article is a press release. GrabUp - Talk 11:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is notable regardless of whether this specific article is a press release. I think we should let this AfD run its course and see what other people think. Shahid • Talk2me 12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources can’t really establish notability (unless any additional criteria is met). You are unable to provide any secondary independent sources but are claiming this article is notable. You are replying to everything but saying you have no time when asked to provide independent sources, and acting like you have, but actually have not. Anyways, I will leave it to the closer to decide. GrabUp - Talk 17:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with your points when seen specifically, but disagree about the outcome where all the criteria are taken together. I think I have made my point clear and so have you. Shahid • Talk2me 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seem to be notable and meeting GNG. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LusikSnusik: Can you explain how he meets GNG? You should learn about notability before voting on AfD. GrabUp - Talk 10:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article cites in-depth coverage of the subject's books and his criticism. He is mainly known for his work, which is common enough. The same could be said of the poet Homer or the playwright Shakespeare. Mayank Shekhar is clearly notable as a film critic. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not cite multiple reliable secondary independent sources with indepth coverage on subject's book. It is very clear to me that you did not review the page. Subject's comparison with Homer and Shakespeare is bizarre. RangersRus (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closer. Please do not consider consensus based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Keep votes have not made any logical and policy based arguments. The last keep vote by Aymatth2 before this note makes me suspicious of off-wiki canvassing who hasn't voted on an AFD for as far back as I can check and to just appear and make vote on this only AFD today just adds to suspicion. The creator of the page who voted for keep admitted that he is inclusionist and that is why his stance is amoral and disingenuous. Please assess the discussion and review the page and sources on the page for final consensus before closing this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Amoral and disingenuous"? As I've noted to the other user, please assume good faith on other participants here. The fact that they do not agree with you doesn't mean their arguments are not "logical". This is an AfD where no one is obligated to satisfy his voting peers. Please note it is your second note to the closer; I'm sure the closer will consider the entire discussion without us repeating ourselves. Also remember that if the article does not have enough good sources, although I think it does, it doesn't mean deletion is the right course of action; improvement is. With respect to inclusionism, beliving in it is totally allowed on WP as long as you follow policy - I have used above policy-based arguments and said that in my view this article meets notability guidelines. Shahid • Talk2me 22:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough good sourcing? Not a single independent, reliable secondary source is cited. Please share if you find any. Just promotional, Sponsored, NEWSORGINDIA, full of sayings of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 02:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for the Bollywood Hungama source, there is just a single piece, which cannot make the book notable as it requires multiple independent reviews. GrabUp - Talk 02:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop replying to me in several places, especially when I call out another user for inappropriate conduct. You say the same above. Shahid • Talk2me 09:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying if there is an editor who wants to work on the article.
    Source 1: A full review of the subjects book. reliable, independent, and significant coverage.
    Source 2: An WP:ABOUTSELF blog, reliable but not independent.
    Source 3: A passing mention which is a quote from the subject, reliable - not independent - not significant coverage.
    Source 4: This is by the subject themselves, reliable but not independent.
    Source 5: A piece about the subjects book, reliable - not independent as it mostly an interview. This is the Asia Age sources mention above.
    Source 6: By the subject, not independent.
    Source 7: By the subject, not independent.
    Source 8: One line noting they won the Ramnath Goenka award for 'Films and Television (Print)', this seems notable per WP:ANYBIO point 1 but that doesn't guarantee inclusion it only mean they are likely notable.
    Source 9: A press release, reliable but not independent.
    Source 10: A book by the subject, reliable but not independent.
    There are two more sources mentioned in this discussion. Two book reviews one by SpectralHues and another by Times Of India. SpectralHues is not a book review site, per it's 'Our services' page[1] it offers services including Content Management, SEO, SEM, Website Designing & Development, Social Media Marketing and Book Promotion. It's not a reliable or independent source. The Times India review is quite short and I fear could be promotional.
    So there is one reliable, independent source with significant coverage that has been mentioned so far, and that is a review of one of their works and I can't find any other online sources that would contribute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s what I was saying from starting, thank you so much for the detailed analysis. GrabUp - Talk 02:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    New sources have been added to the article and mentioned below.
    Source 1: A review of the same book as source 1 in my first comment. Not significant coverage.
    Source 2: Again a review of the same book. Again reliable, independent, and significant coverage-ish.
    Source 3: A blog by the subject, obviously not independent.
    Source 4: Subject is named dropped in the article, not significant.
    Source 5: Again a passing mention, not significant.
    That makes two sources so far that are reliable, independent and have significant coverage, and both are reviews about a book not the subject. That might contribute to showing the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, but I still don't see enough for the subject of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Update - five more sources have been added, just using a basic search online, including additional book reviews and pieces reviewing his film criticism and calling him a noted film critic. The latest vote seems like an effective source review, but my point has been all along - if the page can be improved, and it can, it needs improvement, not deletion. WP:BEFORE please. If I thought he was notable before, now I'm convinced of it. Shahid • Talk2me 12:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The two sources you are referring to as "Book Reviews" are not book reviews at all.
    1. Paperback Picking NAME PLACE ANIMAL THING and PaperBack Picking Bombay Talkies | In these articles, they suggest some books to read and also mention three other books. Obviously, these are not reviews. Book reviews look like this. : So, this doesn't help meet any notability criteria at all.
    2. Are film critics 'retards'?: Just a passing mention, not a significant source, and no in-depth coverage, so no notability criteria are met.
    3. Breakups, Twitter style: Again, it's just a passing mention, so it can't meet any notability criteria.
    4. An Insider’s View of the Film Censor Board: Blog article by the subject himself, as it was under the domain of 'india.blogs.nytimes.com.' So, it is a primary source and does not meet any notability criteria.
    I don't find any of these sources to be good for meeting any notability criteria, such as GNG. Obviously, passing mentions can't generate notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3 of the sources you added are from TelegraphIndia and these are Paperback Pickings section for advertising current and new books in the market as you can see the price tag in the source and briefing what the book is about. It is not a review by any well known critic. Three of these sources do not help with notability. Source by archived NY Times is an article written by subject himself (primary source and not independent secondary source). Rediff article is just passing mention and an opinionated one not written by any well know critic or journalist but by some one calling themselves Bolly wood and ends the article with "Till next week, love, Bolly." All these sources do not help. RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For passing mention - it's not about the quantity but the quality. To me, listing him as among the critics who "bring sense, and a measure of cinematic sensibility, to their writing" is solid coverage. As for the Telegraph sources - whether book reviews or suggestions - they are discussed and given importance. As for the blog, it just supports him being a member of the CBFC. The fact is that his input as a film critic is often considered in daily newspapers. I can dig more, but I believe the subject is easily notable. Shahid • Talk2me 13:39, 22 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayank_Shekhar&oldid=1236582027"