Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Ranganathan (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.179.18.204 (talk) at 21:41, 5 March 2023 (Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 delete. But if someone wants this to actively improve in Draft, happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 16:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deleted?
What's the objective of wikipedia? What was its vision?
Completely derailed by such actions, sad.. 71.179.18.204 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Ranganathan

AfDs for this article:

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

Anand Ranganathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see anything that convinces me if the subject has satisfied WP:GNG or even WP:PROF.

Yes, there are many people who say crazy things and they get coverage from equally crazy sources, but we need significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.

I don't see that here. Editorkamran (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editorkamran, I am concerned that you seem to be having a disagreement with Mixmon and have nominated a couple of articles created or heavily edited by Mixmon for deletion, unrelated to your disagreement, with the same comment that these are "... may people who say crazy things and they get coverage from equally crazy sources"; I don't see quite how this applies to Ranganathan? I'm not convinced he meets NPROF, or notability as an author, but would value input from someone who knows the Indian scene better than I. He may be one of those people who adds up to notable by being a near-miss on multiple categories at the same time. Elemimele (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: Anand Rangnathan is a prolific fake news peddler.[1][2] Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be open to deleting, but also question Editorkamran's nonsensical motivation. This seems to be a WP:POINTy nomination. It may be correct, bit the edit pattern of the nominator is concerning. Jeppiz (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: I think you are not aware of the context but I hope you will agree with me.
Firstly, there is no need to wait for someone else to nominate the subject for deletion. This subject is known to South Asian users (especially the Twitter ones) for being a rampant fake news peddler.[3] The creator of the article has a history of being a disruptive editor. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify The reasons in the deletion proposal are nonsensical. One of the citations is an article in the The Hindu that tries to explain Ranganathan's work to try to prevent malaria parasites infecting blood cells.[4] This is an example of coverage of his work in a secondary source, and there are other examples. I think the article needs more work, and the editor who did a lot of the work on the article needs support and advice from other editors. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers applies.-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Azuredivay for the links in your post. That Ranganathan is getting in-depth critical coverage is evidence of notability. If it is decided to keep the article on Ranganathan, then this kind of thing belongs in the article. Being the subject of a Wikipedia article is not meant to be a mark of approval. We have have articles on frauds, propagandists, corrupt businessmen, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Azuredivay, I agree with Toddy1. We're not deciding whether the guy is himself reliable source here, we're deciding on whether he's notable. I also think that the fact he gets mentioned by others independent of himself increases the claim of notability, but if he's got a controversial/negative side, it is quite correct to say so in the article (provided the article presents the positives and negatives with a balance that reflects how sources write about him, and provided the negatives are supported scrupulously with good sources). I'd say go ahead and edit! Elemimele (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above coverage happened because of fake news being spread by the subject. He was not the main subject of the coverage.
Those "frauds, propagandists, corrupt businessmen" on whom we have articles generally happen to be the main subject of the coverage. Azuredivay (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does at least appear that the subject is somewhat of a polarizing personality on Twitter from the links above, with many of his tweets flagged as misinformation by reliable fact-checkers. However that itself is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the kind of in-depth critical coverage of personalities envisaged under WP:GNG. Drive-by responses mischaracterizing fact-checking of misinformation tweets as eloquent of the magnitude of in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources do a disservice to the consensus-building discussion. It is clutching at straws at best. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there can be some debate whether the subject passes WP:NPROF or not ( The Indian Academy of science fellowship tilt me towards the side that he does ). It is quite clear that it passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. There are multiple cited sources in the article which are reliable and in depth coverage of the subject. It is not our job to rationalize which coverage is positive or due to notoriety. I will go by the standard textbook WP:NBIO guideline that - A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. . Which is clear that it does. Razer(talk) 15:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does appear that the subject passes WP:NPROF. Point 3 states that - The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Anand Ranganathan is a elected associate of Indian Academy of Sciences. 1 . Razer(talk) 18:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the keep rationale above completely rehashes the argument that was proffered for claiming inclusion under NPROF criterion #3 in the original AfD and discounted by the very articulate EdChem (vide [8]), who has unfortunately not edited since August of 2021. Ranganathan held an associateship of the Indian Academy of Sciences, which is accredited at the beginning of academics' careers and serves as a preliminary to Fellowship, which he didn't acquire. The Indian Academy of Sciences itself is not on the same footing as the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences, and a consensus of uninvolved editors at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (academics)/Archive_10#Notability_Criterion_3_and_the_Indian_Academy_of_Sciences, initiated by EdChem, too held Ranganathan to be not qualifying for the criterion enshrined at NPROF on pretty much the same grounds. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no consensus on the link that you have provided, there is hardy one response to the main post. In fact this further tilt me towards the side that he passes WP:PROF because in absence of any further comment despite trying. We should default to the main WP:NPROF guidelines.
    WP:NPROF is a community vetted guideline and to overrule it, we need a proper consensus which I don't see in the discussion above. Razer(talk) 10:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Azuredivay. The person is better known for fake news instead of what is being promoted on the page. The sources show he is far from notability yet. One should also see the older nomination. Dympies (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep He appears to be a subject of ongoing interest in India-centric news media (although I can't evaluate the reliability/notability of any of those individual publications.) Sennalen (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennalen: Show me those sources I will analyze them for you. Dympies (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just put his name in Google News Sennalen (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sennalen, it doesn't help when you handwave about the very sources that you have ostensibly based your !vote on. Anyway, I ran a Google News search on Ranganathan and the results weren't encouraging in the least. The supposed hits you alluded to was primarily in right-wing, Hindu nationalist websites like Opindia and Hindupost that Wikipedia blacklists and scholars deprecate variously as steeped in fake news and trolling [9]. These had been brought up and then consigned to the scrap-heap in the original AfD too, and their coverage is worthless at best and even then tangential. I suggest you reconsider your weak keep position and take note of the requisites for the WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My baseline stance is inclusionism, and I get even more skeptical when people seem highly motivated to delete a page. If anything, it adds reliably sourced information to the first page of Wikipedia results for... whatever this guy's deal is. Sennalen (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Do you go around ascribing motives to others everytime you're queried on the sources you have handwaved about? Please stop. Notability is demonstrated; it is not presumed to exist. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been trying to remove reference to the Indian Science Academy from the article 2. This overzealousness to remove cited information combined with his earlier interaction with the creator of the article leads me to conclude that this is a bad faith Afd request. Razer(talk) 05:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could focus your energies on establishing the otherwise contested and suspect notability of the subject rather than unnecessarily derail the nom with all this unwarranted snarking and imputations of bad faith. The edit you flag for attention expunged poorly cited congeries of awards the creator had directly ripped off from the CV uploaded by Ranganathan on his employer's website/database. It flowed from a talk page discourse [10], which you yourself were a party to, and where everyone's opinion bar yours converged on the point that it was poorly sourced and needed reliable, secondary sources for verification and for establishing due weight. It should not even concern the creator or the subject, for if anything, the reliance on Ranganathan's own CV is eloquent of the glaring paucity of coverage in reliable sources and possible COI editing (on part of the creator). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will just ignore the personal attack. Trying to remove the Indian Science Academy bit from the article which was well sourced and critical in establishing notability under WP:PROF is not constructive editing. Especially when the article is nominated for Afd. If you will read the discussion on the talk page again, you will realize the common ground was to improve on that section and not to remove it all together. Anyways, this is not the right forum to talk about the article and we can continue to engage about that in the talk page. Since another editor has now shifted the ISA elected associate to the career part which also works in the context. I see no reason we should continue this topic. Razer(talk) 10:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not suffice WP:NPROF #3 as had been established in the original AfD by its participants and as I have elucidated in my responses supra to boot. Adduced coverage isn't subject-specific nor in-depth or plentiful as envisaged in WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There may be some contribution towards some kind of combined case for notability via WP:NAUTHOR. A casual search found two reviews in what I believe to be reliable sources. [11][12] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of book reviews available for the books written by Anand Ranganathan. [13], [14] , [15], [16] etc. While I am not sure whether it is sufficient to standalone pass WP:NAUTHOR , it none the less add to the assertion that the subject easily passes WP:GNG . Razer(talk) 13:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that those sources yield a marginal pass of WP:NAUTHOR as the books are "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I am troubled that the article is mostly about the subject's less notable career as a biologist (where there is no notability criterion pass that is apparent to me; in particular, I see no signs whatsoever of a pass of WP:NPROF). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns with WP:NPROF but in this case I don't think we need to delve into subject specific notabilities when the article comfortably passes WP:GNG. There are multiple reliable in depth coverage available ranging from books, career as biologist to his somewhat controversial editorials and comments. Razer(talk) 17:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is not clear to me. What are the WP:THREE best sources towards WP:SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Here are WP:THREE sources. One from each field in which the subject is active. [17], [18] [19] Razer(talk) 11:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid those do not wash. The India Today coverage is wholly tangential to Ranganathan, with barely a solitary sentence addressing him as being part of the JNU team that contrived a novel method to study Kala azar. Everything else is extraneous. The Hindu piece is a tête-à-tête with Ranganathan on his work of fiction with barely any prose. And such self-promotion and publicity does not count towards sufficing GNG, for the policy discounts works that are not esteemed independent of the subject. With two of your three best sources eliminated from the picture, we're left with a satirical commentary on a Newslaundry podcast (which he freelanced for) that may at best undergird a few tidbits on Ranganathan's educational qualifications — currently cited to his own CV. In conclusion, GNG is not sufficed by a long shot. In fact, none of your sources measure up on the touchstone of the watchword, which the policy itself deconstructs in the most categorical language. Ranganathan may have dabbled in multiple artistries and that stands testament to his creativity, but to reiterate the motif expressed in the previous AfD, the conspicuous meagreness of coverage in reliable, independent sources for any of his artistries necessarily forecloses the possibility of a standalone article, including under any of the applicable SNGs (including NAUTHOR for a lack of precisely significant or well-known work..subject of..multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Vide [20]). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBlaze Lightning: I agree that the first of these sources is weak, and in the absence of much other evidence of NPROF, I am skeptical that this grants much. The second source I take seriously, particularly when combined with the reviews listed elsewhere -- for NAUTHOR, I'm looking for several reviews, spread over more than 1 book, which I'm seeing here. I agree that the article would require serious reworking if he is notable mainly as an author, and WP:TNT may be relevant. The Newslaundry source, I am a little uncertain how to take. Note in passing that WP:RSP lists The Hindu as a newspaper of record, and Newslaundry as a solid source (with a cautionary note about possible bias). TrangaBellam, want to make sure that you saw this part of the discussion after your note below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what are these reviews for meeting the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR? It cannot be an interview with the subject even if published in a reliable source for the reasons spelled out above. We don't count it towards WP:GNG, and likewise, it would not be an acceptable source for establishing the significance of the book because it does not provide an intellectually independent and critical commentary of the subject's work. As WP:INTERVIEW notes, "Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability. I see dubious websites like geetachabbra and indiatvnews passed off as reviews occuring in reliable sources above. Those do not wash. If Ranganathan was notable as an author there wouldn't have been a need to grasp at straws like this. I am afraid I am not convinced either. Editorkamran (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the interview in The Hindu (a newspaper of record, per WP:RSP), there is also a straight up review [21]. I agree that the blog is not a reliable source, but the Deccan Chronicle, India Today, the Hindustan Times, and India TV all look at least weakly reliable to me. Indeed, the books For Love and Honour and Souffle both appear to (marginally) pass WP:NBOOK. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be in a rush to conclude that the subject suffices a certain threshold for inclusion under NAUTHOR without actually adequately establishing your contention. Facile characterizations or far-fetched constructions of guidelines do not help, for notability is not simply a numbers game; the guidelines envisage in-depth critical coverage in reliable sources, the paucity whereof is necessarily eloquent of a lack of notability. For instance, you seem to somehow find acceptable a primary account of Ranganathan's work (read the interview), a non-existent purported review in Deccan Chronicle, frivolous clickbait and non-artistic panegyric in right-wing misinformation TV news website India TV, a trivial two-para panegyric in India Today to claim an enumeration of 5, which is bogus. These do not make a work or a body thereof signficant or well-known. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. You have misunderstood what a Wikipedia:Passing mention is.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Azuredivay and MBlaze lighting. Ranganathan might be known for conspiracy theories and fake news but he is still too far from satisfying WP:GNG. CharlesWain (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a NPROF fail but I am not sure about GNG. What are the five best sources that the keep !voters are relying upon? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rework. We have a WP:MILL biologist, who has established a somewhat notable presence as an author and columnist. I make the case for WP:NAUTHOR above: I see 5 reviews in reliable sources (including one in The Hindu) for 2 books. A tweet of his was substantially covered by The Indian Express [22]. It is difficult to separate his work as a columnist for Newslaundry from the coverage of him there, and the coverage of his scientific work tends to be somewhat glancing, but the marginal WP:NAUTHOR case combined with other notability brings me to a keep !vote. I considered whether WP:TNT might apply, but I don't think the article is in such bad shape for that. I suggest that we should describe him along the lines of "an author and columist who also works as a biologist", as the former are the main sources of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You undermine your own case by overstating it. As a matter of fact, The Hindu and the Hindustan Times provide, arguably, the only half-decent reviews of Ranganathan's fiction work, dating back to 2015. Anything else for contriving an inflated enumeration is scraping the barrel. Specious embellishments like "combined with other notability" are bogus and an eyewash; these have not only remained unsubstantiated, but also debunked. As a matter of fact, the community considered Ranganathan's claim for notability in the round in the original AfD and none of it washed then. The only newfangled aspect that merits a reconsideration is the release of Ranganathan's fiction work Souffle, but which has not garnered a solitary meaningful review. That illustrates a lack of notability, if anything, if you ask me. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable as yet. Individual has had some of his tweets fact-checked for misinformation, for his apparent right-wing leanings, but lack of independent sources directly critiquing him means he falls short of our WP:SIGCOV criteria. No claim for notability under WP:NPROF has apparently been established to satisfaction owing to a lack of fellowship in a reputed learned society. There also seem not many sources critiquing his books for establishing their significance. >>> Extorc.talk 10:43, 27 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Ranganathan_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1143087967"