- 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. Courcelles 22:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hemant Shesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. A GNews search turns up no hits, and a GBooks search turns up trivial listings only. Of the references in the article, the The Hindu article provides some coverage of the subject but I have concerns about its verifiability as the article does not list an author. In any case, the article says little more about the subject than that he won a local literary award. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The fact that the author has been including google.in links on his user page indicates he's not found any evidence of his own notability either. Despite efforts to clean up the copyvio and peacock issues with this article it still looks like a vanity piece for a non-notable poet. His civil service career shows no evidence of notability either. Bazj (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Searching for anything that would help the article meet that criteria was not successful. - SudoGhost 08:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if the subject himself (author of the article) can't find any evidence of his own notability, and we cannot, then the case is pretty conclusively made. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the reasoning offered by Bazj and Orangemike: If the highly-involved subject of the article can't find anything to establish notability, it's not surprising that nobody else can either. I looked and found nothing. Msnicki (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to Keep: Per Phil Bridger below. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per above --ChristianandJericho (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would take issue with the nominator's assertion that the award covered by The Hindu is local. It is open to all authors from Rajasthan, which has a larger population than the United Kingdom. Would we characterise a national UK award as local? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would generally consider a literary award open only to residents of a single state as local. While obviously and as you pointed out some states are more populous than other countries, the cultural significance of an award does not necessarily depend solely on the number of people theoretically eligible. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what would you base an assessment of the cultural significance of such an award on? India is far from a monocultural country. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned this in the nomination because the article did not say much of substance about Shesh, and the award was local, an assessment that you take issue with. If you would like to discuss literary awards in general or this particular award in more depth, I would love to do so but this is probably not the correct forum. VQuakr (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That definition of "local" would exclude anything that isn't universe-wide, so is not useful for our purposes. This is the precise forum where this needs to be discussed, because the notability of the subject depends on whether this is "a well-known and significant award or honor", per WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if you are wanting to discuss whether this award meets WP:ANYBIO then this is the correct forum, though I do not understand why you did not mention that in your first post and instead took issue with the term "local" (really, def #3 in MW does not usefully apply?). In my opinion this award clearly does not meet the intent or scope covered in WP:ANYBIO. VQuakr (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That definition of "local" would exclude anything that isn't universe-wide, so is not useful for our purposes. This is the precise forum where this needs to be discussed, because the notability of the subject depends on whether this is "a well-known and significant award or honor", per WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned this in the nomination because the article did not say much of substance about Shesh, and the award was local, an assessment that you take issue with. If you would like to discuss literary awards in general or this particular award in more depth, I would love to do so but this is probably not the correct forum. VQuakr (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what would you base an assessment of the cultural significance of such an award on? India is far from a monocultural country. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would generally consider a literary award open only to residents of a single state as local. While obviously and as you pointed out some states are more populous than other countries, the cultural significance of an award does not necessarily depend solely on the number of people theoretically eligible. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. The subject has received widespread coverage in reliable sources for winning a major literary award:[1][2][3][4]. There's also this article in another reliable source describing him as "a distinguished poet, art-critic and columnist". We have enough sources in the Roman alphabet, which is not Shesh's native script, to establish notability, so I'm sure that plenty more could be found in Devanagari. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it doesn't meet criteria number 1. The award is one of three given by this minor group, and doesn't appear to be well known or particularly notable. Simply typing 'Bihari Puraskar' into google only gives minor news articles that duplicate press releases (and less than 5,000 results), Google News shows absolutely nothing, and there is nothing else to demonstrate that the award is well known or significant, therefore the award cannot be said to be a "a well-known and significant award or honor", thus failing WP:ANYBIO #1. - SudoGhost 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That Google News search only covers the last month. I have shown that several reliable sources specifically covered Hemnat Shesh's receipt of this award. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's not what is being discussed. It is covered that he received the award, and that is not being questioned. The award itself, however, is neither significant, nor is it well known, thus failing WP:ANYBIO #1. - SudoGhost 22:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Notability is never about a WP:BIGNUMBER or about rarity. It's the same principle in judging the significance of an award. It's immaterial that only one of these awards is given out to all of India (or even to the entire world) unless you can establish that reliable sources WP:RS consider it significant, which takes more than routine coverage. Then maybe you could get a consensus (which doesn't exist now) that anyone who wins that award should be considered per se notable. Msnicki (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To further this, I am aware of WP:GHITS, but in this case, I am not questioning the notability of an article, but how well known something is, which a Google test is well suited for. A well known award would not have less than 4,000 results. Typing in random Wikipedia usernames returns more results than that, and these usernames aren't "well known". - SudoGhost 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's not what is being discussed. It is covered that he received the award, and that is not being questioned. The award itself, however, is neither significant, nor is it well known, thus failing WP:ANYBIO #1. - SudoGhost 22:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That Google News search only covers the last month. I have shown that several reliable sources specifically covered Hemnat Shesh's receipt of this award. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it doesn't meet criteria number 1. The award is one of three given by this minor group, and doesn't appear to be well known or particularly notable. Simply typing 'Bihari Puraskar' into google only gives minor news articles that duplicate press releases (and less than 5,000 results), Google News shows absolutely nothing, and there is nothing else to demonstrate that the award is well known or significant, therefore the award cannot be said to be a "a well-known and significant award or honor", thus failing WP:ANYBIO #1. - SudoGhost 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination and arguments being made for its deletion are good example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias prevalent on wikipedia.He is a well known author and a civil servant- an uncommon combination. He got Bihari Puraskar a prestigeous award for Rajasthani authors counts nothing for these deletionists .Shyamsunder (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has not been demonstrated that he is a well known author, and fails WP:AUTHOR. The award he won is not well-known nor is it significant, failing WP:ANYBIO, as per above. If he does meet any of Wikipedia's criteria, which does he meet? Simply being an author and civil servant is not sufficient if he is not notable for either. Also, accusing those that argue for the deletion of the article of bias against Indian culture without any proof is a personal attack that has no merit whatsoever, and is not addressing the substance of this discussion, that the article's subject is not notable, nor have you demonstrated otherwise. - SudoGhost 13:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Shyamsunder, creating an article (Bihari Puraskar) just to support your view is not good policy. I am also from India, and I don't see any kind of bias towards the country or the people. And mentioning that in an AfD discussion might even invalidate your vote. Also, civil servants have been good authors too - Raju Narayana Swamy for instance. I completely agree with SudoGhost here. — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The author gets coverage from top and reputed Indian newspapers like The Hindu, Hindustan Times and The Times of India. These papers have readership in the millions. And we aren't even considering the amount of coverage he gets in local Indian languages. It's a no-brainer to me to keep this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are minor mentions that are for a single event, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. - SudoGhost 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clear autobio. I don't how the award Bihari Puraskar is considered notable. Firstly, it is given to people who write only in Rajasthani which is not a major language in India (in the article it states that it is spoken by over 80 million people, but the 2001 census data says otherwise). Secondly, only articles about this individual winning the award seem to come out of Google/Yahoo searches. I guess the media coverage about the award has more to do with an IAS officer receiving it. — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references from The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran (all newspapers with a daily circulation of more than a million and well established editorial processes) as well as others from Naiduniya that are now included in the article are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. There are also more Hindi sources out there and Google cache shows me one from The Times of India but the link does not go through. —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are minor mentions of a single event, failing WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. - SudoGhost 06:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what you're saying is that four newspapers (ignoring Times of India as I can't get through the link), each of which has a circulation greater than the NYT and Washington Post put together, will cover a non-notable person receiving a non-notable award? That really would be the crux of the argument against meeting WP:ANYBIO #1. And BLP1E is a non-starter here. The Naiduniya article is about another award, the other Hindi sources from (Rajasthan Patrika) are about his career postings. But it appears that this AfD is a moving target -- first it's the verifiability/reliability of The Hindu, then it's a "local award" when ~ 60 to 70 million people are eligible for the award, then the award fails Anybio, now it's BLP1E. BLP1E exists to protect private individuals, someone who has published over 20 books under his name, who is the District collector for a territory with a population of over 700,000 people is not a private individual. —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'll read the rest of the AfD, it has been demonstrated that this article does not meet WP:ANYBIO #1. Stop assuming that those reasoning that the article is not notable are out to "get" the article. Has it ever occurred to you that the article might just be not notable? - SudoGhost 07:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it ever occurred to you that the subject might be notable? —SpacemanSpiff 07:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It had. Then I read the article and assessed it based on Wikipedia's criteria on notability, and found that it did not meet that criteria. I'm interested, however, in where you get the idea that WP:BLP1E only applies to "private individuals". I find it highly unlikely that being an author that fails WP:AUTHOR somehow excludes the individual from having to meet WP:BLP1E, and being a "District collector" does not convey notability to the subject in any way, nor does it exclude the individual from having to meet Wikipedia's criteria on notability. - SudoGhost 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe there's any point in us continuing this discussion, it doesn't look like I'm going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me -- I've already made my argument as to why he meets ANYBIO etc etc. So, I'm leaving this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It had. Then I read the article and assessed it based on Wikipedia's criteria on notability, and found that it did not meet that criteria. I'm interested, however, in where you get the idea that WP:BLP1E only applies to "private individuals". I find it highly unlikely that being an author that fails WP:AUTHOR somehow excludes the individual from having to meet WP:BLP1E, and being a "District collector" does not convey notability to the subject in any way, nor does it exclude the individual from having to meet Wikipedia's criteria on notability. - SudoGhost 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it ever occurred to you that the subject might be notable? —SpacemanSpiff 07:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'll read the rest of the AfD, it has been demonstrated that this article does not meet WP:ANYBIO #1. Stop assuming that those reasoning that the article is not notable are out to "get" the article. Has it ever occurred to you that the article might just be not notable? - SudoGhost 07:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what you're saying is that four newspapers (ignoring Times of India as I can't get through the link), each of which has a circulation greater than the NYT and Washington Post put together, will cover a non-notable person receiving a non-notable award? That really would be the crux of the argument against meeting WP:ANYBIO #1. And BLP1E is a non-starter here. The Naiduniya article is about another award, the other Hindi sources from (Rajasthan Patrika) are about his career postings. But it appears that this AfD is a moving target -- first it's the verifiability/reliability of The Hindu, then it's a "local award" when ~ 60 to 70 million people are eligible for the award, then the award fails Anybio, now it's BLP1E. BLP1E exists to protect private individuals, someone who has published over 20 books under his name, who is the District collector for a territory with a population of over 700,000 people is not a private individual. —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are minor mentions of a single event, failing WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. - SudoGhost 06:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject has received coverage in at least five reliable sources (simply not naming an author doesn't make a source unreliable, as that's the standard practise of many high-quality sources with strong editorial processes, such as the BBC or the Times of Malta). While many of them are about a single award win, two cover the rest of his career instead. BLP1E as currently written applies only when the person is covered only in the context of the event and is otherwise low-profile, as SudoGhost's quote above makes clear, so the additional sources not about the award mean that this isn't a concern. And since when was a 600-word article entirely about a person a "minor mention"?! Never mind whether or not the award win satisfies ANYBIO (I would suggest that by itself it probably doesn't), this is more than enough to meet the fundamental standards of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources used in the article are not about that single event? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see one. - SudoGhost 12:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This English source and this Hindi one (assuming Google Translate hasn't messed up terribly - does anyone here speak Hindi so we can check?) are about a different award that he won. Although both are fairly brief mentions and wouldn't establish notability by themselves, I think they dispel the idea that he's only covered in the context of one award, which is enough to pass BLP1E as I'm reading it. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. As I mentioned above, the Naiduniya source is about a different award -- Ghashiram Varma (sp?) award which is the third such award that he has coverage for in online sources. We also have a couple more from Rajasthan Patrika that list his postings as civil service officer in addition to a brief profile for the Jaipur Literary Festival -- [5]. While online archives for the English dailies are available since about early 2000, the Hindi dailies have only been online for a couple of years and don't have a proper archive either. —SpacemanSpiff 12:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one isn't significant coverage, his name is mentioned briefly in one sentence. While WP:BLP1E doesn't say so, WP:1E says that people that are notable for only one event (as this article's subject seems to be) should not have their own article, but should be mentioned in the award's article instead (assuming that article is found to be notable). As to the second source, Google translate does anything but help, trying to decipher that translation literally gave me a headache, and now I have to step away from the computer for a bit. :\ - SudoGhost 12:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This English source and this Hindi one (assuming Google Translate hasn't messed up terribly - does anyone here speak Hindi so we can check?) are about a different award that he won. Although both are fairly brief mentions and wouldn't establish notability by themselves, I think they dispel the idea that he's only covered in the context of one award, which is enough to pass BLP1E as I'm reading it. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources used in the article are not about that single event? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see one. - SudoGhost 12:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it do that? - SudoGhost 13:20, 8 September 2011 (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.