Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saagar Enjeti

Saagar Enjeti

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

(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 for now. Yet to meet WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rising (news show). Enjeti does not presently satisfy the WP:GNG, but could in the future. Zingarese talk · contribs 06:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is reasonable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. See Talk:Rising (news show) §Merge – wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage is a subjective call, but:
Outside sources have written about him, e.g. Saagar Enjeti deserves better than Jim Acosta's scorn

Here's another source recently writing about his tweets

I suppose not as notable as his co-host Krystal Ball, but he does get mentioned in such articles.

FWIW, I'll bet that this is his father, Prasad Enjeti. (notable power electronics engineers don't get much notice from Wikipedians)

Might wait to see whether there are any reviews of his upcoming book, due for release on February 8, 2020. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those listed sources contribute much toward GNG. If the discussion were leaning delete, your point about his upcoming book would make me lean toward draftify, but if the discussion closes as redirect then there's no need and the article can be restored once coverage is available. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the above comment. Apart from articles written by Enjeti himself, there are a few more sources that this article could use. And I agree that the February book release is likely to lead to a few more. Wholesale deletion is a strange idea so I interpret this as an AfD to turn the article back into a redirect to The Hill. Connor Behan (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, "the Daily Caller's Saagar Enjeti captured evidence" of socks in the White House briefing room! Is this an indication that the room was infiltrated by a Wikipedia editor who wanted to remain anonymous?! wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sources provided here appear to just quote Enjeti's Twitter without saying much of anything about him. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Along with co-hosting a program alongside a well-known commentator/fmr political candidate, Enjeti is progressively gaining in online notoriety. --- Evans1982 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evans1982, could you provide evidence of this notoriety in the form of significant coverage? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit) Same as above. Rdzogschen (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rdzogschen: you've got to provide a rationale, dude. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr., Sir, friend, brother, etc. would be fine. Never dude. Rdzogschen (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rdzogschen, ok, my sincere apologies. Zingarese talk · contribs 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit) I agree with comments above to keep. Mark as stub. Fostrdv (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stub done. Rdzogschen (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fostrdv, what is your argument to keep this article? Zingarese talk · contribs 18:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my position to redirect this article to his show. Presently, Enjeti lacks the significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources to qualify for an article of his own. I have looked at the sources provided by Wbm1058 and Connor Behan and I am convinced that they are not enough; Washington Examiner is of questionable reliability and the Townhall source I don't believe qualifies as significant coverage (and Townhall is also of questionable reliability). Same with the Federalist source (a very partisan publication of dubious notability), Vice (not significant coverage at all) and Spectator (ditto). I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON at this stage. Enjeti may certainly be notable in the future; I regularly watch Rising and am fairly impressed by him. Its also true that he has a book coming out soon, but he co-wrote it with Ball and I want to wait to see if there will be any reviews. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TOOSOON by days, Ball + Enjeti present the book in February (with Dore), and if it gets reviews in RS… €0.02: –84.46.52.79 (talk) 01:46, 26 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]