Talk:Ram Kishore Shukla/Archive 2

Tags
I'll get back to this before the WP:BLPPROD expires, but the article has external links, none of which I can verify as reliable (not knowing where they came from, or reading Hindi. If none are reliable, the article must be deleted.  I believe some are reliable, but I can't prove it.

This is independent of the question of whether this person is notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else removed the WP:BLPPROD, but it's OK; at least some of the references are legitimate, although I can't trace all of them. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

References are found to be legitimate and authentic
References are found to be legitimate and authentic as all of them are publications of Government of Republic of India on Ram Kishore Shukla there fore no need of deletion tag as above, however it is necessary to keep the discussion for reference that tagged issue above has been resolved. Thank you - Ballisticizer
 * False; still probably notable, even though there is very little sourced material. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradition, according to the words Clearly notable mentioned on by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) the article is about a person who is clearly notable regardless of doubts. --Alcides86 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination
I've removed it; the article is mostly unsourced puffery, and is being attacked by multiple IPs, making it unstable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination needed
GA nomination removal contradicted as it was designated This was a perfectly good article  on by a reputed administrator JamesBWatson (talk) thus there is a need of article to be renominated once again, Thanks a lot --Alcides86 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By taking my remark out of context you have misrepresented what I said. I think that reading my remark in context it is clear that I meant it was an article which was perfectly good enough to exist without needing to be deleted, not that it satisfied the "Good Article" criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * GA criteria not met at the time include:
 * Quickfail #3; large numbers of cn tags (after the unusable Google Docs were removed).
 * Some of the docs have been restored with possibly reliable sources, but there are still a few completely unsourced paragraphs.
 * Quickfail #4; "The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars."
 * The edit war appears to have stopped, but, since I'm not sure what the dispute was, I can't be sure it's resolved. The article is also temporarily semi-protected; when that lapses, the edit wars might resume.
 * 1(a); a lot of bad grammar.
 * 2(b); it has inline citations, but only for his electoral successes (and possibly failures), not for any other political activity or background. (An editor has challenged some of those, noting that, in some cases, all we have is the name "Ram Kishore".)
 * 4 A fair number of peacock words, making it non-neutral. I can't say the absence of criticism necessarily makes the article non-neutral, but some "reliable" criticism would make the praise more convincing.
 * Apparently, I shouldn't have removed the GA nomination, but QuickFailed it, instead. The Quickfail criteria above have not yet been fixed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination needed, thanks to Metropolitan90 (talk) who contributed a lot to improve the quality who others did not rather than commenting and placing tags, other issues like in line citations will be resolved very soon G O I document are being brought. Thanks --Alcides86 (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please wait to nominate until the serious issues (noted above, and others) are resolved. If you want to contact me to verify that (most of) the problems are resolved, go ahead; whether or not I'm notified, I'll continue to oppose the nomination until the problems are resolved.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

IP vandalism
Under the assumption that the vandalizing IPs aren't smart enough to look at this page, please report any of the blanking IPs immediately to WP:AIV. In my opinion, one of the IPs has been warned before being blocked; that's adequate warning. You may include this diff (pointing to a slightly earlier version of this section) in your AIV report for justification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears I was wrong. One of vandalizing non-IPs was smart enough to remove this section.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears I was wrong again. It was one of the creators of the article, not a vandal, who was uninformed enough to remove this section, even though it supports his views.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction, it was the nuisance that made one of the creator to do so if happened, a creator never wants to delete his article. Thanks --Alcides86 (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That no sense makes. It was one of the creators of the article who blanked it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Request an immediate attention towards Arthur Rubin (talk)
Thank you Very much Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 -  Ballisticizer  (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

B-Class
"free from major grammatical errors"???? I think not. (And that's a C-class criterion.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to  J (t)  to reform the article and design it to B-Class rather than.... --Alcides86 (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not B-class by objective standards; perhaps WikiProject India has different standards.... If I were familiar with the project, I'd change it back to start-class, rather than just commenting.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of facts
There are several problems with the beginning of the "Early life and education" section.

''Ram Kishore Shukla      was born as eldest son to his father Ram sundar Shukla who was a patwari and mother Budhhi Shukla a housewife. Since, his family was an agriculture based family, there were no such conditions which could be understood as favorable for his studies, still completed his education anyhow on his will.''

The only sources cited here are seven footnotes all immediately following Shukla's name. All of these footnotes refer to the election returns for which he was elected to the legislative assembly. But not all of them even contain his full name. Looking at the 1951 results, "Ram Kishore" is identified as being elected, but we would need more evidence to prove it is the same person as Ram Kishore Shukla. Same thing in 1957. In 1962 the winner is called "Ramkishore Shukla" (missing a space between his first and second name). In 1967, "R. Shukla" is listed as the winner. Only in 1980 is he first called by the full name "Ram Kishore Shukla" used in this article. In 1985 he is identified as "Shukla Ramkishore". And in 1993 he is called "Shukla Ramkishor". Now, these names may all be the same person, and they probably are. But these sources should not be cited to prove the subject's name, as they are apparently being used in this paragraph.

Next, it says that Shukla's father "Ram sundar Shukla" ("Sundar" should be capitalized) was a "patwari". This term needs to be wikilinked -- patwari -- so that readers outside India will understand it. However, it appears that a patwari is a government employee who maintains records of land ownership and crops grown. This suggests to me that Shukla's father, Ram Sundar Shukla, must have been literate -- otherwise he would have been unlikely to be hired as a patwari. But if Shukla's father was literate -- which was rare in India when Shukla was growing up -- then it is not the case that "there were no such conditions which could be understood as favorable for his studies". On the contrary, the son of a literate government employee would have had more favorable conditions for his studies than most Indians of his generation.

And in any event, the citation footnotes should be placed immediately after the statements which they support -- not in the middle of statements which they don't support. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)