Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saagar Enjeti: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Saagar Enjeti: Replying to Wanderer0 (using reply-link)
Mistipolis (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 55: Line 55:
*::::::::: Well said and all. But what my fellow ''keep''ers are trying to say, without saying it, is we should avoid using ''rs'' and ''notability'' as smokescreens. Ex. [[Jamal Simmons]] is a ''progressive'' commentator at ''The Hill'' and his article is as equally vacant as Enjeti's. However that article has not been subject to AfD (as far as I know). So, I'm hopeful the "votes" versus "arguments" above was not intended to be read as "palpable personality versus not palpable." </comment> … Propose merging Enjeti's article with ''[[Rising (news show)|Rising]]''. That may be the better solution, etc. [[User:Wanderer0|Wanderer0]] ([[User talk:Wanderer0|talk]]) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*::::::::: Well said and all. But what my fellow ''keep''ers are trying to say, without saying it, is we should avoid using ''rs'' and ''notability'' as smokescreens. Ex. [[Jamal Simmons]] is a ''progressive'' commentator at ''The Hill'' and his article is as equally vacant as Enjeti's. However that article has not been subject to AfD (as far as I know). So, I'm hopeful the "votes" versus "arguments" above was not intended to be read as "palpable personality versus not palpable." </comment> … Propose merging Enjeti's article with ''[[Rising (news show)|Rising]]''. That may be the better solution, etc. [[User:Wanderer0|Wanderer0]] ([[User talk:Wanderer0|talk]]) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*::::::::::[[Jamal Simmons]] appears to have been created before we started doing new page patrols, which is a more likely explanation for its survival thus far. If you think that it doesn't meet notability standards, by all means nominate it for deletion. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 07:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*::::::::::[[Jamal Simmons]] appears to have been created before we started doing new page patrols, which is a more likely explanation for its survival thus far. If you think that it doesn't meet notability standards, by all means nominate it for deletion. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 07:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*::::::::::: [[User:Rosguill|Rosguill]], the article is very short and is basically just a list of the subject's notable accomplishments. As far as I can tell it is the most comprehensive and well researched on the internet. It's up to you if you want to take it down, but it is clearly filling a role. As an aside I haven't seen a real consensus around credibility and likes, views, etc. There is an article by a random editor expounding their personal views on the subject, but I've had trouble finding policy or a consensus. If you could point me to such a policy I would appreciate it. [[User:Mistipolis|Mistipolis]] ([[User talk:Mistipolis|talk]]) 07:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' I agree with others. At the very least redirect to ''[[Rising (news show)|Rising]]''. [[User:Wanderer0|Wanderer0]] ([[User talk:Wanderer0|talk]]) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' I agree with others. At the very least redirect to ''[[Rising (news show)|Rising]]''. [[User:Wanderer0|Wanderer0]] ([[User talk:Wanderer0|talk]]) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:50, 28 January 2020

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

No independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, does not meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We cannot do proper Wikipedia articles on subjects if there's no usable RS coverage, and if it has to be cobbled together from non-RS, primary sources and off-hand mentions in the lowest quality RS (e.g. there's one RS in the article and it's a Politico newsletter that has one sentence about a forthcoming book by Enjeti and Krystall Ball, the latter of whom is actually notable). Some commenters above cite rubbish sources as indicators of notability, such as The Federalist, the op-ed pages of the Washington Examiner and Townhall.com, which would never be accepted as RS in articles, and should thus not indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Federalist would never be accepted except it has been on several high traffic articles. The reliability, from what I can see, is comparable to Fox. Connor Behan (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient RS coverage. KidAd (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft for potential improvement to the point where it is sustainable in mainspace. BD2412 T 04:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Hill.TV has 231,000 subscribers on Youtube. The article proposed for deletion has had 14,500 views in the last month. "Rising" makes up the great majority of the Hill.TV's content making it one of the largest online news platforms in the world. Should we only use the metrics of outside coverage or does web presence have any pull? This may be outside the scope of low-level editors, but is it not ageist to ignore the metrics that are most important to young people? Mistipolis (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I won't try one of the largest online news platforms in the world on Kim Iversen when she has 231K subscribers (she reached 200K two days after The Hill.) AFAIK there is a consensus to not abuse stats for notability, cf. WT:Wikipedia doesn't care how many friends you have#What is a relevant number of social media followers in BLPs?. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about a news show started by a credible newspaper that regularly has on notable people including serious presidential candidates. This isn't some youtuber in their basement. That said even if you're disinclined to pay attention to social media numbers (a stance I disagree with) I think you should probably still pay attention to Wikipedia page views. The number of views of this page speaks to there being a public want. Mistipolis (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The question to ask when considering the deletion of an article isn't whether people want to find an article, it's whether there is enough coverage in sources to ensure that we can write a comprehensive and neutral article without resorting to original research. As it stands, the article is cobbled together from primary sources and trivial mentions of the subject (i.e. original research), such that we are actually doing a disservice to anyone trying to look up this subject, and we have thus far collectively failed to find any better coverage that would allow us to improve the article. signed, Rosguill talk 00:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that clarification, Rosguill. Are you saying that bios from the Hudson and Steamboat Institutes don't count as credible sources for talking about the subject? This is an honest question. Mistipolis (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say that they're unreliable, as they may be usable for some claims, but I would say that they are not independent of the subject, and thus don't contribute toward meeting GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 02:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, you instigated this AfD, I am the author of the original article. It seems to me that there's not a great consensus on deleting the article outright. I wonder what you would think of tabling this discussion until Saagar and Krystal's book comes out on Feb. 8? If at that point there isn't significant RS coverage I will be happy to concede to your greater experience on this issue. Mistipolis (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote is converting to a redirect, as I stated above. If more coverage is available in the future, any editor can retrieve it. signed, Rosguill talk 05:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, from my perspective all the information presented in the article is backed up by credible citations and we're not in danger of misinforming Wikipedia readers. If we're worried about the subject being sufficiently notable, 600,000 views a day [1] should probably negate that. If we are going by simple vote "Keep" seems to be winning out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistipolis (talkcontribs) 06:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions are not votes, and are decided based on the strengths of arguments as well as their grounding in Wikipedia's policies. There's a plethora of weakly argued keeps, which is unsurprising for an article about someone who clearly has a fan following.
    As for the dangers of original research, spreading strictly false information is not the only concern. We rely on coverage in secondary sources to assess due weight. In the absence of such coverage, there is no way to determine how much attention or emphasis should be given to various aspects of the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 07:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said and all. But what my fellow keepers are trying to say, without saying it, is we should avoid using rs and notability as smokescreens. Ex. Jamal Simmons is a progressive commentator at The Hill and his article is as equally vacant as Enjeti's. However that article has not been subject to AfD (as far as I know). So, I'm hopeful the "votes" versus "arguments" above was not intended to be read as "palpable personality versus not palpable." </comment> … Propose merging Enjeti's article with Rising. That may be the better solution, etc. Wanderer0 (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamal Simmons appears to have been created before we started doing new page patrols, which is a more likely explanation for its survival thus far. If you think that it doesn't meet notability standards, by all means nominate it for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 07:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, the article is very short and is basically just a list of the subject's notable accomplishments. As far as I can tell it is the most comprehensive and well researched on the internet. It's up to you if you want to take it down, but it is clearly filling a role. As an aside I haven't seen a real consensus around credibility and likes, views, etc. There is an article by a random editor expounding their personal views on the subject, but I've had trouble finding policy or a consensus. If you could point me to such a policy I would appreciate it. Mistipolis (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]