Talk:Vinod Jose

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I do not think "author removed prod tags" is a valid criterion for speedy deletion: removing a PROD tag is normal Wikipedia procedure. "No sources" is not a speedy criterion either; this should definitely go to AfD. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author should remove PROD only after providing reliable sources. If a person claims to be BBC reporter and give reference of unknown website instead of BBC website, then it is obvious that the reporter was non-notable even for BBC. That is why no reference on BBC site. I hope you understand anology. Also author has removed SD tag, PROD at least three times. Do you think that new page patrollers should patrol the same page again and again to check who has removed tag? This is wastage of time and you also are wasting my time. Thanks. sharara 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. A prod tag can be removed at any time, expressing a reason why, but not necessarily in association with improving the article. Again: removing a prod tag is a perfectly normal Wikipedia process, and the fact that the author has removed it does not constitute vandalism, so please do not issue any more vandalism warnings for that. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please refrain from using speedy deletion tags without an acceptable motivation. You cannot just come up with your own reasons for wanting a page speedily deleted; you should instead use one of the criteria listed at WP:CSD. Otherwise, use the AfD process instead. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing AFD[edit]

I have removed a chunk of the article that was sourced from a non-reliable source (countercurrents.org) that allows anyone to publish their views on the platform. The author of the report was also pseudonymous. I have attempted to search for more reliable sources on the subject of the biography but have been unable to find reliable and authoritative sources that can be used on Wikipedia. Unless there are more sources provided for this article, I will consider putting this on AFD tomorrow. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am having problems with sources but since this appears to have been PRODed before, I think it has to go to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrani[edit]

I can't find any reliable source for a citation that he is a Nasrani Christian.[Nasrani] Crtew (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should not be stated per WP:BLP. The probability is high that he is of that lineage, given his last name, but that is way, way below the bar that we apply here. Names are generally inherited and do not reflect on the bearer's own affiliations/beliefs etc. We need a source that shows him self-identifying, otherwise it should not be said. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It was more of an info request; perhaps somebody else could find a source! Crtew (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam[edit]

I found a few sources in Malayalam in the External links section. Can anybody translate? Or better yet carry out a search for articles from his writings in his native language! The sources in English about this period are scant. Yet the "countercurrents" article contains good information.Crtew (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

The citations for "Ad Gully" and "Campaign India" About Campaign India were deleted as not reliable sources. I'm going to need some convincing to rule these out. First, the trade press (a journal or publication that is devoted to reportage about a segment of industry) is a valid form of journalism. In fact, those publications can provide more detailed coverage of subjects that cannot be included in mass audience publications because the readership has more specialized interests. This is the equivalent of blocking out PR Week or Columbia Journalism Review. Second, Ad Gully can be searched on many commercial databases. Third, there is nothing in the "about us" section of Campaign India that would make me question the authority of Campaign India. Its described activities are not any different from other trade publications about Watches or the Amusement Business. Crtew (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources[edit]

By my count, I see about 15 sources that are indisputable as secondary sources. That's more than many Wikipedia articles have. Yet one editor claims that the article hangs on primary sources. Some of the citations to primary sources were included so that the reader may easily locate the article that was awarded or referenced in sourced commentary. Do I wish there were better sources in some cases? Yes. The article doesn't hinge on secondary sources. Crtew (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CounterCurrents source[edit]

The following is about locating an important source for the article. I posted this to WP:RX to see if anyone could help. I also posted to the comment section about Vinod Jose's current AfD discussion, as the source is relevant and important enough for making a reasonable conclusion. But it's very relevant here for editors editing Vinod Jose.

More important here is the decision about whether the contents of the following article about his Malayalam period can be used as a source: For a Free Press I am not in disagreement with Sir Nick that CounterCurrents is a WP:SPS. However, legitimate articles get published in CounterCurrents from other RSs. A good example of this occurs in this archived discussion at the WP:RS noticeboard.[1] So the point is that the article from The Meantime published July 20, 2005 could be a RS that would back up several points of notability. 1) Youngest founder of a registered magazine Free Press (magazine) 2)In giving us a fuller picture of his long term reporting on the 2001 Parliament bombing and cases. He already covered the attack while at the Indian Express (We do know from a reliable source he was interrogated about his coverage of suspects and then went on to do his now famous interview with Afzal Guru.) In fact, his career up to that point and all dates are included. 3) Free Press was harassed because of its investigative journalism and closed, which makes this a Freedom of Press issue. The article that appeared in The Meantime is one of the important sources in determining Jose's notability. For now it's in external links as it needs to be located or verified (in my opinion) to use it as a valid source. Crtew (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: The Mean Time was definitely in English! The Mean Time was a registered publication in India (The Office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India). This we know from public records:

  • Title: MEAN TIME
  • Registration number: 69702
  • Title code: KARENG01713
  • Owner: M/S.ALTERNATIVE MEDI
  • Address: A PVT.LTD.,3/6 II FLOOR, B.S.A ROAD,MASJID STREET,BANGALORE
  • Pub_city: KERALA
  • District: BANGALORE
  • VRF Dates: 8/3/1995
  • State: KAR
  • Language: English
  • Periodicity: OP
  • Publisher: P.C. HAMZAH

I would appreciate any help locating the source.Crtew (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal for Free Press[edit]

After a discussion on my talk page about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Press (magazine), I've decided to procedurally nominate Free Press (magazine) for merging into Vinod Jose in lieu of a DRV. I think a merge is feasible, but would like more opinions on the sourcing and potential for expansion of the Free Press article. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This sounds like a bad idea for a number of reasons. The NOTABILITY for persons and for serial works are totally different. The fact that Free Press (magazine) is mentioned in secondary sources is enough to show notability for publications. Free Press stands on its own as an important Malayalam magazine of investigative news and made some important contributions beyond Jose's famous interview that was reprinted and translated and republished years later from the original appearance in the Free Press. In the proposed AfD, Free Press (magazine) did not even get ONE single delete vote. Let it also be known that it was saved without using Malayalam language sources. While Vinod Jose was active as an editor of Free Press (magazine), this was not the only publication he is known for. If you read the AfD for Jose, nobody was saying that he should be kept just because he was the youngest founder and editor of this magazine. Keep votes tended to note the diversity of points among notability categories.Crtew (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment: The process here from AFD to Merge is not a normal one. The proposer above did not bring this Merge proposal independently to the table. The reference to his talk page above shows Nearly Headless Nick, who was the original AfD nominator for both the Vinod Jose article and the Free Press (magazine) article, using an Admin's page as a forum to ask for another result when it was closed as a clear keep. The original process also allowed for the Free Press AfD nomination to be closed and then within a few days afterward to be surprisingly reopened by an admin for more time, which is highly unusual. Still no delete votes. In order to be totally on the up and up and transparent, Nearly Headless Nick should be listed as a co-nominator of this merger proposal. Crtew (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The rationale says "in lieu of a DRV", which means Deletion Review (DRV). This possible review carries absolutely no weight if you look at the clear consensus behind the Free Press (magazine) discussion, the lack of one single delete vote, and, I would say, an understanding of notability for publications by the community members who stated their reasons in the nomination process. Crtew (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the nominator hints at a possible DRV to bolster his merge nomination and yet not one single reason can be given for such a review. These would include the following:

Deletion Review may be used:

  • if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly,
  • if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed,
  • if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page,
  • to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page (called a history-only undeletion),
  • if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted, or
  • if there were a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Instead of suggesting a DRV, just do it.Crtew (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Crtew raises some valid points. That both articles were nominated for deletion by Sir Nick and that contributor now seems to support the idea of merging seems odd to me. Why not propose a merge at the outset? I realise that people can change their mind etc but both AfD ended as keeps and this seems like a bit of a fudge. The correct course, as Crtew says, would seem to be to open a DRV and if disinterested people in that discussion suggest a merge then do it. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, not as keeps but certainly not as deletes. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky situation for me, since the Afd had a clear numerical consensus but the strength of the arguments of the Keep !voters was rather weak. This isn't really the situation that DRV is geared for, so I thought this was a better was to get additional insight into whether a stand-alone article was merited. But feel free to procedurally oppose if you feel a DRV is a better option. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arsten says, "This isn't really the situation that DRV is geared for." In other words, there is no basis for a DRV. Furthermore, let's look at AfD a little closer for the policy reasons listed: 1) Direct quote: "There is a good reason to "keep" this Malayalam-language, investigative journalism publication rather than just "merge" it with Vinod K. Jose." 2) WP:Heymann: as fresh sources were added and this is a policy reason. 3) Notability, as secondary sources were added. 4) The nomination was weak. In the words of one person, the nomination was "pointless". The consensus was clear. The fact that the nominator did not like the results is also clear. Crtew (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vinod_Jose&oldid=1207861479"