Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Om Thanvi

Om Thanvi

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Om Thanvi (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)

Non notable.  — fr ^❄ 12:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have searched for sources for 15 minutes and all I have to show for all that is some trivial coverage for getting the Bihari Award, an award that does not seem to be notable. I have tried my best to locate sources detailing his appointment as senior editor at The Indian Express but have nothing to show for it except for a few personal profiles. All in all, I believe that this article should be redirected to The Indian Express if not deleted outright. — fr ^❄ 17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I am the one who created the article and see failure of WP:BEFORE. Subject meets WP:AUTHOR per significant coverage by The Sunday Guardian[1], Aaj Tak[2] and other sources.[3] Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Shivkarandholiya12, one mention, some coverage for a non-notable award in a reliable and un-reliable source does not make a man potable. Additionally, I have restored a portion of my nomination statement which got accidentally deleted while nominating. Regards. — fr ^❄ 17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly more than a mention. Bihari Puraskar is a notable award for which he also received significant coverage from Dainik Jagran.[4] What about this article by Rajasthan Patrika? The subject at least meets 1st point of WP:NAUTHOR which says "person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Thanvi is cited often by "peers and successors". You need to search in Google Books and you will find scholarly publications.[5] Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we agree to disagree. Let's see what other people say.... — fr ^❄ 10:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm going to do a source assess table for the six citations. The five bullet-pointed external links connote no notability whatsoever because they're all either self-published or unreliable blogs.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.hindisamay.com/writer/%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%AE-%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%80--OM-THANVI.cspx?id=1935	It doesn't look affiliated.	? Unfamiliar with the publication.	WP:YELLOWPAGES database entry.	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=47429194&privcapId=22077949		? Bloomberg profiles sometimes require self-reporting.	I have a Bloomberg profile, pretty much anybody who has a stockholder portfolio does. Doesn't make them notable though.	✘ No
http://www.samachar4media.com/headlines/om-thanvi-joins-patrika-group-41621.html	No clear affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with the publication.	? It's just a press release that he's got a new job. It does focus on him but the significance is questionable.	? Unknown
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bihari-puraskar-for-writer-journalist-om-thanvi-115041300645_1.html	No clear affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	? Announcement of receipt of an award. Notability of the award is questionable, the prize is about $1,500 dollars but it's not a WP:CREATIVE automatic keep.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The same is true of the fifth and sixth sources in all regards as it is for the fourth source; they all cover his receipt of this award.

Overall, not a very compelling case of creative notability, so I'm leaning delete. SITH (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

But references about the subject also exists outside a Wikipedia article, in fact more than what has been mentioned in the article. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete He is a senior journalist/editor no one is doubting that. But Wikipedia's notability requirement are higher than that. As of now this subject fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Shivkarandholiya12, you can click and read the notability requirements and judge for yourself if the subject passes any of these. In my opinion he doesn't. The subject was an employee of patrika.com so articles from patrika.com or Rajasthan Patrika would not qualify as independent. The book [6] mentions the name of the subject in passing for providing Hindi news reference, it does not actually cite a literary work by this author. The Analysis of the source done by User:StraussInTheHouse is also correct. hindisamay.com is not a reliable media source but a college magazine. You can produce sources, here even if it is Hindi, but saying WP:SOURCESEXIST in Hindi, without actually producing them here is not enough to keep the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: thank you for that info, I always go for a question mark if I'm unfamiliar with the publication. Sometimes you can tell due to the layout and content of certain newspapers that they're unreliable but Google Translate plus unfamiliarity with a publication makes me err on the side of caution. If the source comes up in future, I'll note it's a magazine. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:StraussInTheHouse You are welcome, please feel free to ping me in future for any help in discussing Hindi sources. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Patrika is absolutely a reliable source since the said article was not written by the subject. You make deliberately nonsensical argument when you argue that Shivkarandholiya12 has not provided any sources, contrary to the fact that he has provided enough. Qualitist (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't comment on the user, rather focus on the content/sources. Regards. — fr ^❄ 04:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You are not focusing on content with your comment though. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is unwarranted and out of context. What I have said just above is a rephrasing of one of the core policies on Wikipedia. Wishing you a prosperous new year. — fr ^❄ 12:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per significant coverage provided in the reliable sources. I note that no one has refuted the significant coverage from Aaj Tak,[7] Dainik Jagran,[8] Rajasthan Patrika.[9] Qualitist (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment in continuation of my delete !vote above here is my own analysis of the sources presented so far including the sources already analyzed by User:StraussInTheHouse with my comment on them. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.hindisamay.com/writer/%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%AE-%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%80--OM-THANVI.cspx?id=1935	It doesn't look affiliated.	College magazine	WP:YELLOWPAGES database entry.	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=47429194&privcapId=22077949		? Bloomberg profiles sometimes require self-reporting.	Anyone can have, does not pass significant coverage criteria	✘ No
http://www.samachar4media.com/headlines/om-thanvi-joins-patrika-group-41621.html	No clear affiliation.	not a notable publication.	? It's just a press release that he's got a new job. It does focus on him but the significance is questionable.	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bihari-puraskar-for-writer-journalist-om-thanvi-115041300645_1.html	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	? not a major newspaper	WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation. about the subject getting Bihari award. Notability of the award is questionable, the prize is about $1,500 dollars but it's not a WP:CREATIVE automatic keep.	✘ No
Aaj Tak, https://aajtak.intoday.in/story/bihari-puraskar-for-writer-journalist-om-thanvi-1-807852.html	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	major newspaper	WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation about the subject getting Bihari award.	✘ No
Dainik Jagran, https://www.jagran.com/rajasthan/jaipur-journalist-om-thanvi-selected-for-bihari-award-12266037.html	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	major newspaper	WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation about the subject getting Bihari award.	✘ No
[Rajasthan Patrika]]. https://www.patrika.com/varanasi-news/government-policies-encourage-violence-said-om-thanvi-1-1927091/	employee from 1980 - 89 and 2018- now. not during the publication of this report in 2017. Interview type article fails WP:PRIMARY	major newspaper	WP:SOAPBOX and interview type article that mentions the statement of the subject during the coverage of an informal discussion of a city Press club.	✘ No
book Gujarat, the Making of a Tragedy by Siddharth Varadarajan			mentions the name of the subject in passing for providing Hindi news reference without elaborating on subject directly or in detail	✘ No
Aaj Tak, Book Review बुक रिव्यू: हमारे आदि तीर्थ 'मुअनजोदड़ो' की आत्मिक यात्रा	Book review of a book written by Thanvi, the article on a book does not provide notability to author see WP:NOTINHERITED		does not talk about the author but only on his book	✘ No
Indian Affairs Annual, Volume 9 2006			makes 2 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating on subject directly or in detail	✘ No
Panoscope, Issues 1-41 Panos Institute, 1987			makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating.	✘ No
India International Centre Quarterly, Volume 19 India International Centre., 1992			makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating.	✘ No
Ecoforum: Journal of the Environment Liaison Centre International, Volume 22, Issue 1 - Volume 23, Issue 4			makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating on topic directly or in detail	✘ No
Article in India Today Writer-journalist Om Thanvi felicitated with Bihari Puraskar	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND		a single Paragraph article on award that has a total of 4 sentences on the subject Thanvi, fails WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--DBigXrayᗙ 04:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray: I think I should at least get a chance to provide the correct overview of the sources:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Aaj Tak, https://aajtak.intoday.in/story/bihari-puraskar-for-writer-journalist-om-thanvi-1-807852.html		Major news media	? WP:NOTROUTINE news announcement about the subject getting Bihari award.	? Unknown
Dainik Jagran, https://www.jagran.com/rajasthan/jaipur-journalist-om-thanvi-selected-for-bihari-award-12266037.html		major newspaper	WP:NOTROUTINE news announcement about the subject getting Bihari award. Gives extended biographical details about the biography of the person. Passes WP:GNG.	✔ Yes
Rajasthan Patrika. https://www.patrika.com/varanasi-news/government-policies-encourage-violence-said-om-thanvi-1-1927091/	Clearly independent from the subject.	major newspaper	Significantly provides the statements of the subject.	✔ Yes
A scholarly publication		Scholarly publisher	Meets WP:NAUTHOR.	✔ Yes
This is additional source from Aaj Tak, बुक रिव्यू_ हमारे आदि तीर्थ 'मुअनजोदड़ो' की आत्मिक यात्रा - Book review of Muanjodaro by Om Thanvi - AajTak	Clearly independent from the subject.	Major news media	An independent review of his book Muanjodaro shows he easily meets WP:NAUTHOR.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Bihari Puraskar is a highly notable award. If you have problems with the notability of that award then nominate that article for deletion and it will end up snow keep.

In the above table, I added an additional source from Aaj Tak,[10] which is an independent review of his book. This shows he easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.

The person "is widely cited by peers or successors" per WP:NAUTHOR. Here are more sources from Google Books that fulfil this criteria very easily:-

• Indian Affairs Annual, Volume 9, Mahendra Gaur, Kalpaz Publications, 2005, p. 214.
• Panoscope, Issues 1-41, Panos Institute, 1987.
• India International Centre Quarterly, Volume 19, p.225
• Ecoforum: Journal of the Environment Liaison Centre International, Volume 22, Issue 1 - Volume 23, Issue 4, p.14

There are many more examples of passing WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to note that a book review does not qualify as a source for the subject. Regards. — fr ^❄ 12:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Why #4 of WP:ARTIST says that review of the work by the subject also qualify as evidence of notability? Orientls (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Orientls, welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest that you read the policy that you linked just above. It talk about multiple independent periodical articles or reviews contributing to the notability of a person and never says anything of the sort one review of a book in any newspaper means that author is notable.. Regards. — fr ^❄ 04:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In place of changing goalposts and welcoming more senior editors than you, you need to rather conceive that the book review is just another one of those many sources that easily confirmed the notability of this prominent writer. To discard a book review like nothing else exists, is misleading. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a senior editor on Wikipedia. I simply corrected what I thought was a extremely newbie like mistake made by the editor. Additionally, no goalposts have been changed, if you can prove that demonstrate that there is significant coverage of the journalist instead of making such comments, I will happily strike my nomination statement and effectively withdraw the AFD. Regards. — fr ⁺ 17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Subject is also significantly covered by India Today.[11] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This single paragraph short article [12] about the bihari award in India Today has a total of 4 sentences on the subject Thanvi. I would say this is far from what is called significant coverage, by the wikipedia community per WP:SIGCOV --DBigXrayᗙ 21:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• comment Shivkarandholiya12 and शिव साहिल have added 5 more sources, I have analyzed these sources and updated my opinion in the table in my comment above. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per DBigXray. No significant coverage has been identified. Catrìona (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per analysis by Shivkarandholiya12. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I see gazillions of instances where his work is cited by other reliable sources including the ones mentioned here. Orientls (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Note news articles based on Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND and cannot be used to establish notability. the news about Bihari award is based on the Press statement issued by KK Birla foundation, this also explains why all these sources were having exact same content. navbharattimes and hindustantimes have credited similar articles to the foundations press statement, accordingly I have updated the source analysis table. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"Where is the link of "Press statement issued by KK Birla foundation"? The two articles from Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times share no similarity because Hindustan times mention "2 Lakh" for a name, but Navbharat Times makes no mention of even "2". You should refrain from falsification. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Throwing NPA out of the window isn't a very good idea. Don't tell me that you claim that A statement issued by the selection committee....said.... and के के बिरला फाउंडेशन द्वारा आज यहां जारी विग्यप्ति में बताया गया (In a release issued today by KK Birla Foundation, it was said that [English translation]) is not a press statement. Regards. — fr ⁺ 17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Read again. Since that award comes from KK Birla Foundation, it is obvious that their statement would be released. To say that entire article is a "press statement" and "this also explains why all these sources were having exact same content" when content is not even same is indeed falsification of sources. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• @DBigXray:, I don't have an idea about what's going on between you, Qualitist, Shiv et al and who's to blame but this mess's getting disruptive. Your inter-personal disputes are now starting to swamp random discussions participated by either, with contrarian stands and if this spreads to more territories, I will ask for sanctions. ∯WBG^converse 10:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• WBG, Ping me here on this page "only if" you want to discuss about Om Thanvi or sources related to Om Thanvi. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR per [13][14][15][16] and many other independent reliable sources that have provided the satisfactory coverage to the subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to link to one source twice. Additionally, a article which seems to be based on a press release, a review of a book and some routine coverage does not make a person pass WP:NAUTHOR. Regards. — fr ⁺ 10:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I cited them otherwise you would ask that which sources makes sure that he pass the mentioned criterias. These 3 sources which you are obviously misrepresenting are not even the only online sources that have provided the satisfactory amount of coverage. See the above comment and mentions of his work in cited Google Books and familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE and WP:NAUTHOR. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

D4iNa4, most of the sources provided are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the journalist for getting some prize (the notability of which is in dispute). Additionally, I don't believe that being mentioned briefly in 6 journals is being widely cited. Lastly, if in your opinion one review of a book in a newspaper in which Om Thanvi was a former employee counts as a independent source which is enough to prove a person notable then I believe its you who is out of touch with the current policies. Lastly, your assumption of bad faith on my part is noted. Regards.  — fr ⁺ 11:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"I don't believe that being mentioned", this is not about what you believe but what policy says. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)