Not logged in | Create account | Login
    Menu

      Authorpædia Trademarks

      Social buttons

      Languages

      Read

      AUTHORPÆDIA is hosted by Authorpædia Foundation, Inc. a U.S. non-profit organization.

    Mikhail Gorbachev

    Radheshyam Bishnoi

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

    Radheshyam Bishnoi (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 recently accepted this article via AfC. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Print, and Hindustan Times, mainly around his death, but with in-depth info about his life. There's also a 2021 Hindi source with substantial coverage. I believe this meets the GNG, but to ensure consensus, I think an AfD discussion would be helpful so experienced editors can weigh in. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Also found these sources on Google, [1], [2]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Was his death notable? Most people have obituaries. Where is the significant coverage outside of his death? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question please. If a news article about a person's death includes substantial coverage of their early life, career, and accomplishments essentially providing in-depth information directly about the subject, does that count toward meeting the General Notability Guideline (GNG)? Or is such a source discounted just because it's related to their death?Afstromen (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reflecting on someone's life is exactly what an obituary does. If they were notable prior to the death, there would be significant coverage about their life during that time. So, unless something about the death is notable, it would not count. Otherwise, we could simply create new pages based on obituary sections of newspapers. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, i wasn't aware of this. Outside his death, i found some sources [5], [6], [7].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Radheshyam Bishnoi was a celebrity in Indian conservation circles prior to his death with many stories published about his work in Hindi and English. He also won notable awards, so he seems to clear the notability bar. Naturepeople (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He was notable person before his death. He won awards from Rajasthan gov and he was featured in many popular news sites. Jodhpuri (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there coverage in reliable sources of the awards? Please provide links to the coverage in new sites and add to the article if you can. Dualpendel (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The link timed out. Can you ensure you supplied the correct URL? Also, is this the only source? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    you can google Jodhpuri (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/jaisalmer/news/jaisalmer-wildlife-savior-radheshyam-bishnoi-inspiring-story-134644803.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/barmer/jaisalmer/news/radheshyam-vishnoi-was-rewarded-with-young-naturalist-award-2021-129184236.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://hindi.news18.com/news/rajasthan/jaisalmer-meet-radheshyam-vishnoi-nature-lover-goes-for-100-kms-to-save-wildlife-his-spirit-inspires-5946711.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Jodhpuri, the photo uploaded on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) mentions "Own work." Did you take this photo yourself, or was it sourced from another website? SachinSwami (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jodhpuri:, not my job to present your contention. I conducted a WP:BEFORE and the sources you provided do not change what I found. These are quite good churnalism but nothing reliable.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @CNMall41,
    I’m asking just to improve my understanding, could you please clarify why these sources are considered churnalism? As someone from India, I can confirm that Dainik Bhaskar is one of the top Hindi-language publications in the country and has a strong reputation. News18 is also a well-known media outlet.
    Tagging @SachinSwami for his insights as well, as he is familiar with Indian news publications. Afstromen (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also, it sounds like you are asking on behalf of Jodhpuri since this is their thread. Did you mean to reply on a different thread? I am a little confused. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you view everything with suspicion? I asked only to improve my understanding, as I clearly mentioned. It's possible I asked in the wrong place. should I have brought this up on your talk page instead?Afstromen (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Afstromen:, I asked for clarification so as not to make an unwarranted accusation. Which thread was this intended for so I can address your question?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Hi @Afstromen, I'm a bit confused about the AFD process. I have some questions. If the page was accepted from AFC, why didn't you wait for experienced reviewers to review it before nominating it for AFD? Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? Also, the page creator Jodhpuri uploaded a photo on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) with the mention "Own work." I asked them about it here, but they haven't responded yet.- SachinSwami (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding sources, Bhaskar News has written against the wrongdoings of the Indian government, and even during IT raids on their office by the central government, they continued to raise their voice against such issues. We have seen this kind of journalism, but if a news article mentions the journalist's name, that source holds more weight; otherwise, the news lacks significant value. This is because promotional or social media information, or news created based on someone submitting a story to the office, often does not include the journalist's name. Hence, such sources are not reliable. Additionally, the Young Naturalist Award by Century Asia Group is a private award, not given by the Rajasthan government. SachinSwami (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean? Could you please be more specific?
      Well I accepted this draft because I believed it contained significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. However, user CNMAll14 added a notability tag and raised a concern regarding the nature of the sources, noting that most reliable sources were published only around the time of the subject’s death. Due to this, I nominated the article for deletion so that more experienced editors could provide their opinion. I agree that while the sources are reliable, and have significant coverage but sources were published around the death time, which raises questions about whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline.
      Before nominating for deletion, I confirmed that the article had previously been moved from mainspace to draft space. I accepted the draft based on multiple reliable sources but acknowledge my responsibility to address any oversights in evaluating the nature of the coverage.
      Additionally, I did not review the image when accepting the draft, which was an oversight on my part.
      If you review my AfC history, you will see that I take conflict of interest issues seriously and do not accept drafts when COI concerns are present. I also request COI disclosures as needed. Afstromen (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jodhpuri, Please answer here about your uploaded photo on Wikimedia commons. read Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest (COI) guideline, and disclose whether you have any COI.Afstromen (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      CNMall41 had also tagged the second page. Did you check the page you accepted? And did you bring it to AFD? The answer to that is "no."
      So, I have doubts about your review of the AfC history for that page. I created the page Nagamani Srinath, which was declined by Greenman and Gheus, with significant comments from them. Those comments were helpful for me to understand how to create pages properly in the future. I wanted to see what other important comments would come on that page. But suddenly, you accepted it, which was surprising to me. Later, when CNMall41 tagged the page for notability and unreliable sources, I checked some of the AfC pages you accepted and realized that, like me, you are also new to Wikipedia, so I ignored it. SachinSwami (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I still believe Nagamani Srinath is notable per WP:ANYBIO as she is a recipient of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award. While I may not be a highly experienced editor, I am doing my best. Instead of making allegations, we should communicate with each other constructively and respectfully. But again Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean?Afstromen (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Also please See this. Afstromen (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I completely agree with the tags placed by CNMall41 on the page. I also know that this page is notable, but receiving the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and having sources for it is not sufficient under WP:ANYBIO. The person must have made significant contributions to their field, earning widespread recognition (e.g., in arts, science, literature, sports, politics, etc.). This requires confirmation of their contributions through reliable and independent secondary sources. Additionally, if a person is famous only for a single event (e.g., a viral video or a single news story), they do not qualify as notable under WP:ANYBIO unless their long-term contributions or impact are proven through sources (see WP:BLP1E).
      Also, I responded because you pinged me. I haven’t directly accused you of anything. Based on the photo added by Jodhpuri, I only mentioned that it “ I'm a bit confused" and asked about it while staying within WP:AfD rules. If my question has hurt your feelings, I apologize.-SachinSwami (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No need to apologise, but please take care of this. If you are unsure or confused about any of my actions, feel free to ask me anytime. However, I kindly request that no direct or indirect allegations should be made without reason.Afstromen (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      yes. this picture was captured by me. Jodhpuri (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread is distracting from the notability discussion. As far as Nagamani Srinath, I went ahead and sent that to AfD here as I still have concerns and notability is not inherent simply for winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete -The sources in it are not reliable, and the award is also not credible. Importantly, according to the comment above, the person who created the page has admitted to taking the photo themselves. There may also be a possibility of a conflict of interest (COI).- SachinSwami (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The person who created the page may have a conflict of interest, and the subject is not notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore to draft as a WP:ATD. It is possible that sources before death exist and have just not been found. I would not rule out the opportunity to do so. BD2412 T 20:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Is there consensus for an ATD?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I am extremely confused by the attitudes in this discussion towards obituaries. I think some participants may be confused about the distinction between death notices, which are typically short announcements or paid advertisements submitted by family members, and staff-written obituaries. A proper staff-written obituary in a reliable source is absolutely a GNG-qualifying source, and there is no requirement that we find coverage from prior to his death. See WP:Obituaries as sources. The obituaries in the Hindustan Times, ThePrint and The Indian Express are all bylined articles in reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, and I do not see any reason why they would not count towards GNG. MCE89 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Try not to throw slight at voters in AfDs. Also, you are citing an essay, not a guideline or policy. Even if it were a guideline or policy, it still says "usually notable," not is notable. Fact of the matter is that someone worthy of notice (which is part of a guideline, not an essay) would be covered outside of the obituary. Sorry, but having press write about you around the same time to honor your life is not the same as the press writing about you for what you are accomplishing in life. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if you interpreted that as a slight, that was not my intention. You are correct that WP:Obituaries as sources is an essay, but what guideline or policy are you relying on for saying that obituaries are not GNG-qualifying sources? Obituaries are very frequently used as evidence of notability. In fact I would regard them as quite high-quality sources for biographies, since they provide a general overview of what someone has accomplished during their life rather than forcing us to piece things together from bits and pieces of coverage. I'm not seeing any policy basis for discounting obituaries as sources. MCE89 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N, the main notability guideline, and the discussions associated with that guideline. The fact there is nothing saying the "don't" establish notability does not mean they do. I don't need to prove a negative.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N says that someone is notable if they have been the subject of multiple pieces of significant coverage in sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. These obituaries appear to meet all of those criteria. I’m not asking you to prove a negative, I’m asking you why obituaries should be held to a different and higher standard. And the discussion you are citing is an informal talk page discussion from 16 years ago where several participants made exactly the same distinction I’m making here - a paid death notice in the classifieds section is not useful for establishing notability, but a staff-written obituary is. MCE89 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were notable before their death, it would have been documented in significant coverage. It would be the same as if someone received a lot of press around a single event (see WP:ONEEVENT). An obituary is an indicator that the person is notable, but having several obituaries in reliable sources which are pretty much churnalism would not be considered significant coverage.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree and leave it there. I agree that obituary coverage can fall into WP:ONEEVENT territory when it’s focused on the manner or circumstances of death (which is why we have guidelines like WP:VICTIM), but retrospective coverage on someone’s life and accomplishments that happens to be published upon their death is in my view a perfectly good GNG-qualifying source as long as it otherwise meets the WP:SIRS criteria. We’d have a lot of historical biographies that would need to be deleted if there was actually a requirement to find SIGCOV from during the subject’s life. And I don’t really see why we would disqualify these articles as churnalism given that they are bylined articles in reliable sources. MCE89 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I would disagree. There seems to be discussions with this disagreement as well but nothing showing consensus that they do. Sorry, but having sources published about your life at the time of your death may indicate notability, but if you were notable when you were alive there would already be coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please point to any guideline or policy that explicitly states that independently written obituaries cannot count towards GNG like any other piece of independent SIGCOV? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have pointed to discussions on people disagreeing about it, just like we are here. I think a RSN discussion would be warranted and will open one in the next day. Would be good to get something for this and future AfDs. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if RSN is the right noticeboard for this? RSN is for reliability, not notablity. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. Sometimes my fingers have a mind of their own when my brain is in a fog (as it was earlier). Thanks for pointing it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Credit: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radheshyam_Bishnoi

    Explore other authors