Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saagar Enjeti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mistipolis (talk | contribs) at 23:14, 27 January 2020 (Making an argument to keep the page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
  • Strong Keep The Hill.TV has 231,000 subscribers on Youtube. "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]