Talk:Akash Banerjee

Contested deletion

(As written in my talk page)

Hey @DSP2092

First of all thanks for reviewing the article. I do understand that this has been nominated for speedy deletion as this article had already been removed back in 2019. But right now the article has been written citing multiple sources (see references) The previous article was mainly written about the Delhi lifelest event but the new article mentions a lot more citing several independent sources like the Times of India, scroll.in, India Today and more. So it is not a WP:STUB nor is it about a particular event like the previous article. He is a a well recognized political commentator in India. and mentioned directly or indirectly here, here, here, here and here as said by @ImmortalWizard

So So I suggest you read the article and remove the speedy deletion tag as this article does qualify for WP:Notability

With regards --Rasalghul1711 (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rasalghul1711, thank you for providing additional information about Akash Banerjee's notability but it's important to consider the quality and diversity of sources when assessing notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. also this article is multiple time created by sock puppets. For more specific guidance on notability, you can refer to subject-specific guidelines such as WP:NYOUTUBE (for YouTubers), WP:SNG (for specific notability criteria), WP:JOURNALIST (for journalists), and WP:NBLP (for biographies of living persons). He doesn't meet any of this criteria. Consider improving the article to align with these standards. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 11:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there again @DSP2092

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

As I said mentioned, check the references. I have used Multiple Published Secondary sources which are independent. For example: Times of India is the most read dailypaper in India. Now I do understand that multiple sockpuppets have written this article previously (which I was not aware of) I am not one of them. Not sure how to convince you about this other than the fact that I have edited several articles in the past and all the sources I used here are independent and verified. Bringing @SouthernNights into the conversation for some outside perspective.

With regards Rasalghul1711 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was requested to give my perspective on all this, here's why as an admin I decided this article didn't meet the speedy delete criteria. First, this article is significantly different from the article that was deleted per an AfD discussion in 2019. That previous article totally failed to prove notability and lacked enough reliable citations. Because this new article is significantly different and contains a number of good citations backing up claims of notability, I feel the article doesn't qualify for delete under any of the criteria for speedy deletion.

But the larger question is does the article's subject meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Based on my research while considering speedy delete, I believe he does. Akash Banerjee has been covered in a number of reliable new sources that were not cited in the article when I evaluated it, including Wired (link) and the Business Standard (link). In addition, The Washington Post called Deshbhakt "one of the biggest YouTube channels in India." (link). I have now added these sources to the article. Combined with the sources already in the article, all of this satisfies me he meets notability guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do now consider him notable after additional independent sources from SouthernNights but I said no because he has been a writer for Newslaundry [1], India Today [2], Scroll.in [3], and Times of India [4]. In my opinion, articles on these platforms can't be considered independent sources. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 15:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DSP2092 He was not the writer of those specific articles so these platforms can be considered independent sources in this specific scenario... These articles are not advertisements.

With regards Rasalghul1711 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (November 2023)

This article has history with coi edits and user have added improper lisence image and tone of the article. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]