Talk:Siddharth Varadarajan/Archive 1

Relevance to Wikipedia?
I agree, it looks completely like self-promotion, and the first edit is from an IP address that could well be Mr Varadarajan's (in India). And regardless of who created this article, its relevance to Wikipedia is questionable as he is nowhere nearly famous/ well-reputed as a number of other Indian journalists today. Suggest immediate deletion.


 * Oops.That is a bit too much.If you are not aware that SV is a famous journo in India,that is because of your ignorance.--Sahodaran 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops yourself- my saying that there are others more well known than him does not logically imply that he is completely unknown. You need to work on your basic logic skills.


 * Ok.So there are others more well known than him.Therefore?And there is nothing worth an arguement here,the entry is needed in wikipedia,so I am stopping commenting here.Put it into vote for deletion and we will see it there. --Sahodaran 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Therefore? Therefore? Therefore there is need to consider modifying this piece into a less-self promotional format, if not deleting it until many more worthy journalists and indeed other professionals in India are included. Wiki's space is not unlimited, and so the issue of prioritization is certainly relevant (especially for pieces that are promoted by the subject of the article). I definitely support complete deletion, failing which there is a need for massive editing of this piece. You can choose to comment or stop commenting, it is irrelevant.


 * We have two separate issues.
 * Is he notable? I don't know. But given he has written for two major (if I understand correctly) Indian newspapers, the chances are yes. Let's not get too hasty here. If he's at all notable, let's not delete the article.
 * Is this article NPOV? There seems to be a bit of flattery here and no criticisms or anything. So let's fix the article with a few sources etc. A POV article should not be deleted, it should be fixed. Stevage 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stevage, I agree, he is relatively notable as Sahodaran pointed out- no denying that (Although, as I said, there are scores of journalists who totally eclipse Varadarajan in reputation and achievements). If, as per Wiki policy, that makes the article ineligible for deletion, then I have no problem. However I just feel it is completley self-promotional, and hence warrants Wiki's attention. Perhaps some major editing by Wikipedians will fix this piece over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.22.19 (talk • contribs)


 * He's notable? Then there's no justification for deletion. Please fix the POV aspects then. Stevage 18:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * some minor editing, removed commendation sourced from a page that no longer exists. perhaps toi thought it's no longer necessary on their page . i did not think that sv wrote article himself to self-promote. now the article contains next to nothing, is pov tag necessary? if there are "more worthy" journos who don't have a page, you can request for new articles on them. 158.143.22.19, perhaps you could register as a user and start new articles as you see fit. -Pournami 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have further cleaned up Pournami's editing and removed POV check as it seems unnecessary. 10 February 2006

This entry seems too self-promotional
Ok.So the vandals are here.May be he is a Marxist.Edit the article and add all such info.After citing an authentic reference.Not your personal opinions.--Sahodaran 05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

POV-check template
I suspect there is a bit of promotion going on here. 5 separate links to articles written by the subject, no sources *about* the subject. Mentions of awards etc, but no criticisms. Link to flattering reference by paper which has previously published his work...also this link doesn't even work. Stevage 13:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just googled him and pulled up more than 80,000 hits. seems reasonably wellknown to me.