User talk:Ss ram

Welcome!
Hi Ss ram! I would like to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! &mdash; Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Niranjan BS
Draft:Niranjan BS, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Niranjan BS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Niranjan BS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 👑 Matthew Wellington –  18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Niranjan BS (May 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheTechie was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Niranjan BS and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Niranjan_BS Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTechie&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Niranjan_BS reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

thetechie@enwiki :  ~/talk/  $  01:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear @TheTechie,
 * With respect to Draft:Niranjan BS that has been declined, I kindly request you to read below my humble opinion regarding this.
 * I truly did understand about reliable/secondary/independent sources, but unfortunately could not find secondary sources such as books regarding the subject as he is an actor for less than 10 years in the industry (nevertheless has featured in significant roles that are highly appreciated) and all available sources were primary, but when I read the criteria for any biography on WP:ANYBIO, I understood that reliable/secondary/independent sources are definitely the basic criteria, but that there are also additional criteria for specific categories such as actors, etc., where it says "People are likely to be notable if they meet" those standards. I felt Niranjan BS meets 2 of those additional criteria, with regards to awards and significant roles. I wanted to explain how he meets 2 of those additional criteria as follows.
 * 1. Additional criteria for notability per WP:ANYBIO state "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor."  The subject of this draft, Niranjan BS, is a prominent South Indian television actor who has won quite a few awards as listed in the draft, but I would like to bring to your kind attention to 2 specific awards (noteworthy because they were awarded by well-known independent organizations) - which are "Kala Nekara" award (from Karnataka Art Weavers forum) (Reference #23 in draft) and "Padmamohana TV Awards" for Best Debut Hero (Reference #26 in draft) from Padmamohana Arts (a prominent sociocultural organization that has been conducting several programs for around 30 years and presenting state wide awards).  Among his other awards, these 2 awards do stand apart because they were given by organizations that are independent of the TV Channels that telecast the subject's shows and hence can be considered unbiased.
 * 2. Also, additional criteria for Entertainers (actors) state "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."  As listed in the draft, the subject has played significant roles mainly in TV shows (3 of which including the current one are as the male lead, hence significant roles) but also in other forums like short films and briefly in movies.
 * I really understand that notability cannot be proved adequately when there are no secondary or reliable sources and that it cannot be proved based on available primary sources alone. But when it comes to actors, the listed reliable sources (for India) (such as the magazines like The Hindu, etc) are practically not going to interview every actor out there (I am not referring the ones who did insignificant roles, but rather even the ones that did substantial roles or received awards). We do not know what would be such sources' criteria to interview any particular actor, so finding references from only such limited sources for every actor in India is practically very difficult, and I believe you would agree that this would not mean such actors are not notable at all (I am not meaning popularity, I mean notability only). I understand it is for this very reason that Wikipedia has those additional criteria. Because if we suppose every significant actor would have secondary/reliable sources and the issue is only the editors not finding them, then Wikipedia wouldn't even have those additional criteria in the first place and would have mentioned only the basic criteria as the only criteria to be met for all biographies. So if there are specific additional criteria (for actors, etc), it means Wikipedia itself is providing a rightful exception for such cases.  So I kindly request you to reconsider your decision as I believe the subject qualifies for an article as he meets these 2 additional criteria according to WP:ANYBIO.
 * The subject's acting career covers a span of around 10 years, but unfortunately secondary sources like books, etc, are not usually written within this relatively short span for actors, so could not find any reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, but could find many primary sources like magazine articles which I have included in the draft, and importantly, many of these references are exclusively about the subject himself and I did not include anything that made just a passing reference about him or include any gossip-type articles, carefully read and corroborated information in these articles before deciding on their veracity and their inclusion as references; a couple references that would seem like passing references were included only as a sincere attempt to provide proof for his involvement in whatever show/activity that the reference is about and truly not any insincere attempt to provide too many insignificant references.  I honestly adhered to all Wikipedia rules to my knowledge and ensured that I do not include even a single piece of information for which a reference could not be found online, and in the process, I myself left out many references which did not seem satisfactory or authentic to me or ones that just made passing references about him and left out articles from other languages for not wanting to add too many primary sources.  I ensured to cross-check all the references I provided with the actor's own interviews (which I did not include as references as I thought it's better to cite other sources than his own interviews) that they are correct and included only such information and left out all other news which were present in those references itself but which were not reiterated by the actor in any of his interviews. So as for the facts, they are all true.  If this draft gets approved, I promise to devote my time and attention to update it as and when other additional references (both primary and secondary) become available, thus ensuring it is 100% Wiki-compliant always.  Hence, I request you to kindly consider approval of this draft because not only because the subject meets the above 2 additional criteria for notability but also the draft only contains 100% verifiable facts and made with complete sincerity towards adherence of rules.
 * I once again humbly request you to consider the above 2 Wikipedia Additional criteria regarding notability for entertainers and reconsider the draft's approval. I thank you so much for your time and attention.
 * Ss ram (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear @TheTechie,
 * With respect to Draft:Niranjan BS that has been declined, I kindly request you to read below my humble opinion. I asked for help at the Teahouse too and got a reply that if reviewers accept the additional criteria for notability (that I have described below), they might ask for extra information regarding those, so I wanted to provide further details regarding same.
 * I truly understood the need for reliable/secondary/independent sources, but unfortunately could not find secondary sources such as books regarding the subject as he is an actor for less than 10 years in the industry (nevertheless has featured in significant roles that are highly appreciated) and all available sources were primary, but when I read the criteria for any biography on WP:ANYBIO, I understood that reliable/secondary/independent sources are definitely the basic criteria, but that there are also additional criteria for specific categories such as actors, etc., where it says "People are likely to be notable if they meet" those standards. I felt Niranjan BS meets 2 of those additional criteria, with regards to awards and significant roles. I wanted to explain how he meets 2 of those additional criteria as follows.
 * 1. Additional criteria for notability per WP:ANYBIO state "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor."  The subject of this draft, Niranjan BS, is a prominent South Indian television actor who has won quite a few awards as listed in the draft, but I would like to bring to your kind attention to 2 specific awards (noteworthy because they were awarded by well-known independent organizations) - which are "Kala Nekara" award (from Karnataka Art Weavers forum) (Reference #23 in draft) and "Padmamohana TV Awards" for Best Debut Hero (Reference #26 in draft) from Padmamohana Arts (a prominent sociocultural organization that has been conducting several programs for around 30 years and presenting state wide awards).  Among his other awards, these 2 awards do stand apart because they were given by organizations that are independent of the TV Channels that telecast the subject's shows and hence can be considered unbiased.
 * 2. Also, additional criteria for Entertainers (actors) state "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."  As listed in the draft, the subject has played significant roles mainly in TV shows (3 of which including the current one are as the male lead, hence significant roles) but also in other forums like short films and briefly in movies.
 * I really understand that notability cannot be proved adequately when there are no secondary or reliable sources and that it cannot be proved based on available primary sources alone. But when it comes to actors, the listed reliable sources (for India) (such as the magazines like The Hindu, etc) are practically not going to interview every actor out there (I am not referring the ones who did insignificant roles, but rather even the ones that did substantial roles or received awards). We do not know what would be such sources' criteria to interview any particular actor, so finding references from only such limited sources for every actor in India is practically very difficult, and I believe you would agree that this would not mean such actors are not notable at all (I am not meaning popularity, I mean notability only). I understand it is for this very reason that Wikipedia has those additional criteria. Because if we suppose every significant actor would have secondary/reliable sources and the issue is only the editors not finding them, then Wikipedia wouldn't even have those additional criteria in the first place and would have mentioned only the basic criteria as the only criteria to be met for all biographies. So if there are specific additional criteria (for actors, etc), it means Wikipedia itself is providing a rightful exception for such cases.  So I kindly request you to reconsider your decision as I believe the subject qualifies for an article as he meets these 2 additional criteria according to WP:ANYBIO.
 * The subject's acting career covers a span of around 10 years, but unfortunately secondary sources like books, etc, are not usually written within this relatively short span for actors, so could not find any reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, but could find many primary sources like magazine articles which I have included in the draft, and importantly, many of these references are exclusively about the subject himself and I did not include anything that made just a passing reference about him or include any gossip-type articles, carefully read and corroborated information in these articles before deciding on their veracity and their inclusion as references; a couple references that would seem like passing references were included only as a sincere attempt to provide proof for his involvement in whatever show/activity that the reference is about and truly not any insincere attempt to provide too many insignificant references.  I honestly adhered to all Wikipedia rules to my knowledge and ensured that I do not include even a single piece of information for which a reference could not be found online, and in the process, I myself left out many references which did not seem satisfactory or authentic to me or ones that just made passing references about him and left out articles from other languages for not wanting to add too many primary sources.  I ensured to cross-check all the references I provided with the actor's own interviews (which I did not include as references as I thought it's better to cite other sources than his own interviews) that they are correct and included only such information and left out all other news which were present in those references itself but which were not reiterated by the actor in any of his interviews. So as for the facts, they are all true.  If this draft gets approved, I promise to devote my time and attention to update it as and when other additional references (both primary and secondary) become available, thus ensuring it is 100% Wiki-compliant always.  Hence, I request you to kindly consider approval of this draft because not only because the subject meets the above 2 additional criteria for notability but also the draft only contains 100% verifiable facts and made with complete sincerity towards adherence of rules.
 * I once again humbly request you to consider the above 2 Wikipedia Additional criteria regarding notability for entertainers and reconsider the draft's approval. I thank you so much for your time and attention.
 * Ss ram (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you cannot find secondary sources, I'm sorry, they are not notable. Please stop pinging me. Pinging reviewers in a panicked fashion when your draft is declined does not help.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  14:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reasons to ping you were:
 * Reading in Teahouse that "appeals are made directly to the declining reviewer" and definitely not panic. So when I got to read about additional criteria for notability, I felt I was honestly addressing a genuine doubt with the right person, and ensured I'm doing it in a very polite and thankful manner. Didn't even imagine that this would be interpreted as panic or incorrect behaviour.
 * A reply in Teahouse that reviewer might ask for additional information regarding those additional criteria per WP:ANYBIO, so I felt it's my duty to provide that info and not make the reviewer ask for it, so it was not to disturb or plead anyone by pinging. Please don't generalize or categorize people and their behaviour just because some other people behaved according to your comment.  All are not same.  I only asked an honest doubt in a polite manner that too only for reasons stated above. I just did a draft conscientiously and sincerely and according to my understanding of WP:ANYBIO, which if it's wrong could have been stated so and I would have rectified it.  Need not be made to look like as if I am seeking some favour (which I never will) by stating "does not help."   Though the reply was hurtful, thank you for your time and attention.
 * Ss ram (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)