553:- The sources S Marshall provide do not address the issue of notability. 1) NY Times - simply uses a quote from him; that's not "significant coverage." 2) Rediff - mentioned only in context of HinduUnity.org. 3) Outlook India - trivial mention. 4) Tehelka - trivial mention. 5) Muslim World - trivial mention. 6) Samaj - trivial mention. It seems that the sources may establish the notability of
295:, even if abbreviated ,is not civil. Second, I did not go through your links(do I have to?). I did a seach on google. And even if he is mentioned in NY Times, it doesn't mean he is necessarily notable. All he has done is start a website. You seem to be taking this rather personally, for whatever reason. --
403:'s links show coverage, on reading through the links, I see that all of them are coverage for the website as the subject, not the individual. Coverage of the individual is related to his role as the one running the website, as a secondary topic. I don't believe this falls under substantial coverage in
345:
There is no rule that you have to base your decision solely on the links provided by other voters. If that is the case then why have an AfD at all? why not simply go by the nominator's opinion and delete right away? And since when did not going agreeing with another voter at AfD and doing your own
253:
Sure does get some google hits, but most of them are links to his profiles on various networking sites, or his own posts in various forums, or mirrors of his posts. Very few articles are actually about him, and seem to be written by people who are closely associated with him politically. The only
355:
I was irritated and annoyed yesterday, since your reply indicated that you had neither performed a thorough search for sources yourself, nor read my sources, before !voting. I find this kind of behaviour very frustrating, because searching for sources is hard work and it's everyone's
233:
I did do my bit of literature survey for him, but failed to find primary sources with significant coverage on him. Apart from the NYT link that you have posted above, I do not find any of the other sources to be significant coverage. Nothing to justify a biographical article for me.
407:. Also, while Tehelka is a news outlet, it's more a sensational tabloid, so I'm ignoring that one, but the NYT, Outlook and Rediff are all focused on the website itself (which probably merits an article, and Vyasmaan could probably be merged there). -
267:
None of the links I cited above are profiles on networking sites, and none are posts on forums. Is it seriously your position that the New York Times is "closely associated with him politically"?—
495:
299:
258:
350:
121:
537:. The person is not the primary subject of the references provided in the article, and preliminary research doesn't indicate sufficient notability for a separate article.
317:
I find it astonishing that you would disregard my comment so completely as not even to bother looking at the sources I cited, and still have the chutzpah to admonish
152:
304:
No, you don't have to go through my links, though the closer will likely take account of the fact that you didn't in assessing the weight xe gives to your !vote.
195:
128:
Notability in question. Has NO sources for nearly six months now. Last few lines in the article justify non-inclusion rather than inclusion. Some minor
189:
435:
is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
183:
575:
380:
339:
285:
88:
83:
17:
92:
432:
449:
373:
332:
278:
218:
53:
75:
321:
for incivility; but it is true that in my surprise, I used the edit summary "Wtf?", and I apologise with all due profuseness.—
596:
36:
254:
thing he seems to have done is start a website, which is no longer runnign anyway. Hardly a criteria for notability.--
201:. The fact that the article has had no sources in the past 6 months is down to laziness, not inherent non-notability.
49:
521:
595:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
570:
475:
412:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
192:
581:
545:
525:
507:
479:
456:
416:
243:
225:
173:
141:
57:
359:
79:
306:
A mere mention in the New York Times does not establish notability, no. What establishes notability is
239:
137:
347:
296:
255:
517:
516:
and merge/ modify into an article on the website which everyone in the discussion agrees is notable.
503:
446:
370:
329:
275:
215:
554:
71:
63:
565:
562:
471:
408:
204:
542:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
235:
133:
307:
129:
499:
439:
400:
363:
322:
268:
208:
165:
404:
311:
538:
109:
310:. It's my position that the New York Times, and Indian national newspapers, are
292:
First of all, please control your language. Using abusive terms in edit summaries
186:
534:
160:
198:
314:
and the discussions mentioned above constitute significant coverage.
207:
because the nominator has clearly not bothered to look for sources.—
589:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
431:
means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and
182:. Notability is not in question, because there is coverage in:
557:; I would support the creation of that page and subsequent
293:
116:
105:
101:
97:
470:. This is an interpretation where you and I differ. -
358:Today, having slept on it, I realise that I should
496:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
466:I don't believe that they address the subject in
308:significant coverage in multiple reliable sources
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
599:). No further edits should be made to this page.
362:. So thank you for the efforts you've shown.—
8:
425:Yes, it is a secondary topic. The GNG says:
153:list of India-related deletion discussions
147:
151:: This debate has been included in the
494:: This debate has been included in the
360:simply thank you for your contribution
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
203:In my opinion this nomination fails
132:violations as well in the article.
24:
438:This seems a perfect fit to me.—
346:assesment become incivility? --
1:
616:
526:17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
508:00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
480:22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
457:20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
417:17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
381:07:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
351:04:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
340:13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
300:10:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
286:10:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
259:10:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
244:05:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
226:08:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
174:08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
142:06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
592:Please do not modify it.
582:17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
546:13:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
58:00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
429:"Significant coverage"
50:Backslash Forwardslash
433:no original research
561:to that target. --
44:The result was
510:
176:
156:
607:
594:
578:
573:
568:
490:
454:
444:
405:reliable sources
378:
368:
337:
327:
312:reliable sources
283:
273:
223:
213:
172:
169:
163:
157:
119:
113:
95:
34:
615:
614:
610:
609:
608:
606:
605:
604:
603:
597:deletion review
590:
576:
571:
566:
518:ChildofMidnight
453:
450:
440:
377:
374:
364:
336:
333:
323:
282:
279:
269:
222:
219:
209:
167:
161:
159:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
613:
611:
602:
601:
585:
584:
555:HinduUnity.org
548:
528:
511:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
461:
460:
451:
420:
419:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
375:
348:Deepak D'Souza
334:
297:Deepak D'Souza
289:
288:
280:
262:
261:
256:Deepak D'Souza
247:
246:
230:
229:
220:
177:
126:
125:
72:Rohit Vyasmaan
66:
64:Rohit Vyasmaan
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
612:
600:
598:
593:
587:
586:
583:
579:
574:
569:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
547:
544:
540:
536:
532:
529:
527:
523:
519:
515:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
481:
477:
473:
472:SpacemanSpiff
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
458:
455:
447:
445:
443:
436:
434:
430:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
409:SpacemanSpiff
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
383:
382:
379:
371:
369:
367:
361:
354:
353:
352:
349:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
330:
328:
326:
320:
315:
313:
309:
303:
302:
301:
298:
294:
291:
290:
287:
284:
276:
274:
272:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
257:
252:
249:
248:
245:
241:
237:
232:
231:
228:
227:
224:
216:
214:
212:
206:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
164:
154:
150:
146:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
591:
588:
558:
550:
530:
513:
491:
467:
441:
437:
428:
426:
396:
365:
357:
324:
318:
316:
305:
270:
250:
210:
202:
179:
148:
127:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
535:Bajrang Dal
397:Weak Delete
236:prashanthns
134:prashanthns
500:Erwin85Bot
442:S Marshall
401:S Marshall
366:S Marshall
325:S Marshall
271:S Marshall
211:S Marshall
205:WP:BEFORE
559:redirect
539:utcursch
531:Redirect
399:. While
122:View log
563:King of
89:protect
84:history
551:Delete
468:detail
251:Delete
199:source
196:source
193:source
190:source
187:source
184:source
117:delete
93:delete
162:Salih
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
543:talk
522:talk
514:Keep
504:talk
498:. --
492:Note
476:talk
452:Cont
413:talk
376:Cont
356:job.
335:Cont
281:Cont
240:talk
221:Cont
180:Keep
168:talk
149:Note
138:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
48:. \
533:to
130:BLP
52:/ {
580:♠
541:|
524:)
506:)
478:)
427:*
415:)
319:me
242:)
155:.
140:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:}
577:♣
572:♦
567:♥
520:(
502:(
474:(
448:/
411:(
372:/
331:/
277:/
238:(
217:/
170:)
166:(
158:—
136:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.