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 no consensus. The article underwent significant expansion during the AfD that addressed some of the original rationale for nomination. On the remaining issue of notablity, there is no meeting of the minds pointing to deletion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Jose

[edit]
Vinod Jose (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 journalist, sources used are primary. Article fails WP:AUTHOR. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference of closing nominator, this IP: 122.176.214.231 (talk) is me again. To preclude questions: I'm rarely around on Wikipedia that much any more, tend not to use an account therefore, usually avoid discussions because I'm - well - an Old Wikipedian and know where that can take you.
I'd like to thank Crtew for his work on the article, it looks much better. In fact, that's why I came here, wanting to just reverse my "vote". But I've looked again at the arguments and turns out that, sadly, I'm just not convinced. I explain why below. 122.176.214.231 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fresh sources added: Plenty of secondary references exist and have been added while the article has been expanded. Among the sources are information about his awards, which satisfies a key factor in establishing notability for WP:Author. His work as a journalist has also been covered, commented on and quoted by his peers, which satisfies another factor. His work in narrative journalism in India makes him important.Crtew (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are just two sources for the awards: Asia Society, Institute for War & Peace Reporting.
The article still fails to assert notability and the sources that you have added fail WP:RS. Other sources are WP:PRIMARY or at best transient mentions of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE-1 Notability is asserted clearly in that he is an editor and author at India's only narrative magazine, which is a niche fulfilled by Granata or The New Yorker in the west.Crtew (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE-2 ALL sources DO NOT fail. That assertion is wrong. Example: Jose was central to the case involving access to Kalanithi Maran's company's records, a private limited company, as he was filing a "right to know" petition, which is a key tool of investigative reporters. See: NDTV, Times of India, India Express. By far, his most widely published work was the 2006 exclusive interview with Mohammad Afzal Guru, which was even translated into Italian "AL PATIBOLO INSIEME ALLA VERITÀ", Radicali Italiani di Vinod K. Jose by way of La Stampa. Furthermore, where sources were questioned, other sources were provided that corroborate. I acknowledge that it is difficult to search for his work or about his work during his Malayalam-language period.Crtew (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE-Furthermore, I would even say that about his mentions in The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, that it is remarkable as his magazine is distributed physically only in India and Nepal. Crtew (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So he filed an Right to Information application which was reported in the news? The articles are about the CIC and the RTI application itself, not the subject of this article. Please see WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I still do not see as to how the subject qualifies. Additionally, he was not the only person to interview Afzal Guru, there were several others. The magazine that you have linked to the Italian Radicals is a non-notable magazine that has an article on itself similarly based on primary and non-reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said (see above) by way of La Stampa, which is a major national newspaper in Italy. The La Stampa article is archived and it is still searchable and retrievable through commercial databases. Crtew (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is not that it is an equivalent but that it is the only magazine filling that niche in India, which sets publication apart. Of course articles can be written about the magazine that don't mention him at all and the WP article says that he is the executive editor and a contributing writer. The livemint article is a very good piece about the publishing company behind the magazine!Crtew (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the Mint story is that it was essentially about the Caravan and its placement and didn't even talk about Jose, but about the two seniormost editors according to the masthead, which goes to how much of the magazine's notability spills over onto him. Further, whether a publication is "set apart" does not mean that one of its editors is notable. There is perhaps a single motoring magazine in India, but its editor is not notable. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-2: The filing of a "right to information" request is definitely non-notable. Thousands are filed every year; most news stories in India today are built on the back of such "RTI" requests. Many of them push the envelope in such a way, and cause differing interpretations from the Information Commission, as the law is very new and still being worked out. Crtew (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that he got significant coverage and in reliable sources for his reporting as the case not only concerned a prominent individual with connections but it involved a private and not a public company.
No, the precedent set got coverage, not the nature of his reporting, so it doesn't add to his notability. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-3: It is far from surprising he is mentioned in the blogs of the NY Times and the WSJ etc. These are *Specifically* India-focused blogs, INdia Ink and India Real Time. They do weekly round-ups of articles; once a fortnight the NYT's does a specifically "long reads" edition visible here: [3], [4], [5]. The numbering indicates 60 long-reads roundups so far in a couple of years. It is hardly surprising that an article by Jose has been mentioned in one of them and it does not in any way indicate notability. It is a curation/aggregation service being provided by bloggers for the NYT website, in short, not a regular RS. 122.176.214.231 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a typical blog as the writer is actually a journalist working under the editorial supervision of the publication. The source is reliable and meets standard verification principles. The Guardian site is by an Indian author who writes regularly for the British newspaper. Crtew (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, they are blog posts that are meant to aggregate the week's articles -- as such they provide no notability. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What version were you looking at? Crtew (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, he stands up quite well to the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Author#Creative_professionals. For Point 1. The awards and mentions come from organizations that are themselves listed in Wikipedia and those awards carry weight. Nobody said they were a Pulitzer, but how many Indian journalists have won the primarily Western-focused award? If you look at the criteria for awards and notability, you will see that the criteria speaks to repeatedly winning or being nominated for awards. For Point 2. The Caravan is pioneering narrative journalism in India, and this is a sourced, and Jose's role in the magazine is also established. And for Point 4: His peers in journalism do write about his work. The blogs you dismiss are from The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Moreover, his other journalism was widely reprinted and translated and even his reporting about media ownership was covered in the national newspapers in India.Crtew (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Nobody is denying Caravan is notable. But that does not mean its executive editor is immediately notable himself. Please note I have already answered the claim about the NYT etc. Do all the thousands of other Indian journalists linked, with their work excerpted in the NYT's "newswallah" blog also qualify under this criterion? Clearly not. I don't know about the awards -- or award, according to the earlier comment -- being notable, but I quite agree one award of unknown notability is not enough to confer notability on a journalist, espeically since it is apparently specifically excluded from the notability criteria for journalists. Fails WP:AUTHOR still and should still be deleted. But I commend Crtew on his efforts. 122.176.214.231 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being quoted as an industry participant in an article about an industry does not confer notability. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than that. Eg. [6]. I agree that he weakly satisfies four criteria (exec. ed., quoted, awards, and the case quoted by crtew above) but 4 weaks should make a keep. --regentspark (comment) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the number of times his interview with Mulakat Afzal Guru has been translated and reprinted from 2006 to 2013 contributes to the importance of his work. This argument has often been used in AfDs about authors but it's hardly ever used in the case of a journalist. Crtew (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: My recent changes on Vinod Jose where I removed several unreliable sources have been reverted by User:Crtew. The closing administrator should review the changes made and subsequently reverted. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on talk, Sir Nick deleted trade publication sources as not reliable. In fact, trade journalists are more informative than journalists who write for the masses as they are often experts and they are writing for an informed audience. I dispute calling these types of sources unreliable. Sir Nick also deleted pointers from a newsletter but not the newsletter itself, even where I had already indicated that additional citations were needed. Yes, I reversed these. Crtew (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Sir Nick has put down the primary sources template. There are actually plenty of secondary sources in the article. Crtew (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you kindly, for the sake of this discussion, list out the secondary and reliable sources used in the article over here so that they may be discussed one by one? Thanks for commenting here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy: There is a basic difference between an AfD page and a Talk Page. You're asking to turn an AfD page into a talk page.Crtew (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking you to discuss the secondary and reliable sources that you claim to have introduced into the article. Since we apparently disagree on their quality, reliability and secondary nature, these few sources are relevant for discussion on the AfD page for the benefit of the closing administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.[7] 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:

I've asked WP:RX for help.Crtew (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Additional fresh sources included: Vinod K. Jose's article on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh received additional attention when the Washington Post posted a correction on behalf of its reporter for using two quotes from the Jose's article in The Caravan without properly acknowledging their origin and making it appear as if the reporter had interviewed Singh's representatives when he had not. This issue received additional widespread attention. It had already been selected by the faculty of the Columbia University Journalism School and jury as one of 100 Great Stories written by its alumni. And, of course, this paragraph includes more secondary sources! Crtew (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Call for any Wikipedians with knowledge of Malayalam: I've seen this before with Malayalam journalists in AfD. They are at a huge disadvantage in AfDs because sources in Malayalam language, as well as other languages with non-latin script, are not easily accessible with Google or traditional search tools. I have found a couple that need translation in external links. However, if someone with more knowledge than me could search for additional sources, it would be appreciated. There is a hole: This source NYFP says he was "the youngest editor in India when he started a magazine, the Free Press." That was a Malayalam magazine. Also if anybody could find the orginal source for this [article] would help. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Related: The same nominator has also put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Press (magazine), founded by Vinod K. Jose, up for an AFD. Crtew (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2013 (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.
More