Talk:Vidyut Gore

Move to article space
We are now back in mainspace. I've gone with the comments of the XFD Closer on refund and kept the article substantially as is and not gone for a tear down and build up as planned. (And people more skilled than I have written this). I have removed some claims particular from the lede ... effectively taken on board requested edits suggestions from COI editor and implemented where appropriate (mainly name change). The DRV closer indicated even no consensus to overturn better sourcing would be helpful and new sources have been added. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great job ! The Alt Shakar section has further good quality refs (particularly from The Hindu). While  should obviously not directly edit the BLP, would be great if she can check it for (1) accuracy again (especially Personal details + Infobox), and (2) are there other good quality sources and references (e.g. The Hindu), that mention her directly that we should include here.
 * The AfD of Vidyut Kale's BLP almost killed my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, however, your perseverance in restoring this interesting BLP is appreciated. Britishfinance (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS, I am guessing the trolls will return to AfD this BLP again. Britishfinance (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It will be OK.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Input from BLP Subject, Vidyut Gore
About "While should obviously not directly edit the BLP, would be great if she can check it for (1) accuracy again (especially Personal details + Infobox), and (2) are there other good quality sources and references (e.g. The Hindu), that mention her directly that we should include here."


 * I am caught up in work these days and just scanned through the article. Some things I spotted:
 * 1. My date of birth is 6th December 1976
 * 2. The infobox mentions me as divorced. Personal life mentions me being in a committed relationship (which is correct current status after the divorce - though I guess both are technically correct.)
 * 3. I don't contribute on rural affairs to P. Sainath's website. I used to run the blog associated with the website when it was new. The interview of P. Sainath should also be removed altogether from here. I didn't do it. I merely republished the interview as instructed. The original interview appears to now be deleted, but the page linked to here clearly mentions that it was republished from another website along with the name of the interviewer. For the record, I have never interviewed P. Sainath (would be conflict of interest if I also worked for /supported him), though I have been said to have done it in error by others.
 * Wow. The article did get published. I lost track of the page after all the drama.
 * I will try to share better sources if I find them later. I don't want to get into the whole CoI thing again, so I will think this through properly when I have more time. Reading the article is a bit like hearing your own voice in a recording. Technically, it is me, but it is what I looks like when coverage of me is put together. So I am a bit wary that me suggesting corrections or additions may seem more relevant from ground zero as me, but coverage of me may not agree. Vidyutblogger (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. In response to the above:
 * I have fixed 1. (there was confusion over the DOB but your own twitter feed confirms it which is acceptable on WP for things like DOB).
 * Let us leave 2. as-is for the moment, as it captures the verifiable facts of your relationship status.
 * I have deleted the sentence on the PS interview as the article does support your claim that you did not do it but just reproduced it (it has YH as the interviewer).

Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media or a magazine. It is only interested in capturing what a subject did, and what a subject said, and only through quality, independent third-party references (per WP:RS), which gives the items "notability" (per WP:GNG). Things that are not notable are not useful to Wikipedia. References from blogs (including yours) etc. are almost worthless. As a guide, any RS writing about you specifically (tangential mentions are less useful unless the RS is really really high quality), that also has its own Wikipedia article (e.g. I added a reference from Quartz (magazine) that discussed you at length with Alt Sarkar), it likely to be useful. The ideal is high quality RS that cover you/interview you in detail (per WP:SIGCOV). Britishfinance (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've blanked spouses as reading Template:Infobox person 'Divorced' is not mentioned as a valid entry format for that parameter ... it should be Name (married 1970–99) according to my reading of it which actually is likely more acceptable. Its removal is also I believe consistent with two other removal/non-entry of relatives on BLP infobox person related articles I have previously dealt with (in some ways similar and in other ways different).  There is an option for a partner= parameter but I am in general more comfortable with what a BLP subject publishes about themselves so I personally am more reluctant to use it.  My apologies for any distress my mistake caused.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point on that Djm-leighpark, thanks, BF. Britishfinance (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

new book

 * ✅ Thanks. Treated as sort of request edit  ... verifies so added to Bibliography.  Might add prose later. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)