Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bihari Puraskar


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Regarding the disagreements about NAWARD, I would like to note that the way I read that note/essay/whatever is that an award needs to meet GNG, which this one doesn't, as careful analyses have shown that the sources brought forward are based on press releases and therefore do not contribute toward GNG. In the absence of truly independent sources treating the subject in depth the "delete" !votes have the stronger argument. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Bihari Puraskar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NORG. A literary award by a private foundation. Concern is lack of significant coverage of the award. The sources are WP:ROUTINE news articles that announce the winner. The foundation website is dead.  D Big X ray ᗙ  21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone  11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Significantly covered by The Hindu, Business Standard, Navbharat Times, Jagran and others. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Shivkarandholiya12 you might want to read WP:Speedy_keep first. I have analysed the sources you presented. The 4 line content published on all of them are "exactly the same" and based on the "press statement" from K K Birla foundation. Article based on press statements cannot be used to establish notability see WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) from WP:ORGIND Moreover one of the link you mentioned is not even about Bihari Puraskar, can you recheck it, appears to me as a mistake. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the link of the "press statement" from K K Birla foundation"? The two articles from Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times share no similarity because Hindustan times mention "2 Lakh" for a name, but Navbharat Times makes no mention of even "2".  You should refrain from falsification.
 * I was talking about this link. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I note an assumption of bad faith here. please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. There is no need of falsification. The source clearly state "press statement"
 * Hindustan times in its article credits the press statement with the line"A statement issued by the selection committee (of award) ... :.
 * Navbharat Times in its article credits it to press statement with the line"के के बिरला फाउंडेशन द्वारा आज यहां जारी विग्यप्ति में बताया गया " which translates in english to "As stated in the press statement issued by KK Birla foundation" -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why you are copy pasting a weak argument which I had already refuted? To say content is "exactly the same" when it is not is indeed falsification of sources. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Awards which are truly notable receive coverage above and beyond articles attributed to press statements. There doesn't seem to be any indication of the same here. Regards. — fr&thinsp;+  05:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While some sources are press statement you are forgetting that we are discussing about the award, not the company. Can you prove if these sources are press statement? We are not making any exceptional claim, neither discussing notability of a company but an award which appears to have received significant coverage. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, says "यह जानकारी फाउंडेशन के निदेशक सुरेश ऋतुपर्ण ने जारी बयान में दी" that translates to "This information was given by Director of the foundation in a press release." Press releases don't qualify for notability per WP:ORGIND.
 * All the sources provided so far only mention these exact lines that have already been shown to be coming from press statement. "Bihari Puraskar is a literary award instituted by K. K. Birla Foundation . The award is named after the famous Hindi poet Bihari and is awarded to an outstanding work published in Hindi or Rajasthani by a Rajasthani writer. It carries a citation, a plaque and prize money".
 * If it is notable, then why aren't you able to find any coverage that talks more about the award other than these 3-4 lines ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources have provided as much information as it was necessary to provide about the subject, which is certainly more than a passing mention. They are WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject and qualify WP:RS and that is all you need to think about. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These sources are not enough to satisfy WP:NORG, If you think it passes, then please share the sources and the criteria. I have explained above why these articles based on "press statements" of the KK Birla foundation are not independent per WP:ORGIND. Even for claiming WP:SIGCOV "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject  is needed. This is clearly lacking here. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Per DBX; though I disagree (to an extent) about the branding of the sources to contribute nothing to GNG. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage. There does not appears to be much in-depth significant coverage of the award. Non-notable. — fr&thinsp;+  18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shivkarandholiya12. Passes WP:NAWARD WP:GNG. WP:ROUTINE is irrelevant given the years of sufficient coverage in RS. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC) ( modified 15:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC) )
 * WP:NAWARD is not a valid policy or criteria. Arjundeo Charan bags Bihari Puraskar article you quoted above, has exact same 4 line mention of the award in a WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation. I have updated my analysis table to include this. WP:ROUTINE is clearly applicable here. Thousands of foundations give millions of awards every year, just because they give award every year and their press statement gets published in newspaper, isn't a valid justification of notability see WP:ORGIND. Significant coverage of the award in Reliable media is what is lacking here. If you can provide multiple sources with significant coverage, I will withdraw my nomonation myself. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NAWARD is best we have to get idea of notability about the award related articles. Since that award is given by KK Birla Foundation, it is obvious that their statement would be covered. What else do you expect? Fact that it is covered by reliable independent sources is what we need for meeting criteria which is already provided to you with enough sources.  Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you see the archived template at WP:NAWARD ? It is there because community has decided with consensus that WP:NAWARD is no longer a valid guideline for notability. So please stop quoting it. If you think that this award is significantly covered, then why are you not presenting the references that have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject " all the sources you are presenting are based on press statements and then arguing that such sources based on press statements are valid for notability. No they are not. Please see Notability_(organizations_and_companies) to be precise, that specifically excludes articles on Press statements from being used for notability. The fact that you are unable to find any sources other than routine award announcement based on Press statement, should itself make it clear to anyone that the subject is not notable. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NAWARD and receives independent coverage from reliable media whenever it is awarded to generally a notable person. Nom's rationale is misleading. Orientls (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable soruces that are independent of the subject. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 10:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in the independent reliable sources. Easily meets the standards for awards. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shashank5988 Thanks for sharing the relevant links. I note that first source you presented mentions, "A statement issued by the (award) selection committee..." which means this award announcement news article is based on the press statement and uses the exact same lines that all the articles from press statements have been using Notability_(organizations_and_companies) (Churnalism). Both these 2 links  talk about other writers and only have one line mention of the award saying this writer got the Bihari award.
 * The recent pile on votes that are quoting WP:NAWARD,, never was. And making comments of WP:ASSERTN without reliable sources to back the claim, should be appropriately discounted by the closing admin. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment-
 * Guys, can you please read the stuff rather than blindly copying whatever policy/guideline/essay the previous !voter has thrown in ?
 * NAWARD was instituted to segregate those awards which are so valued, that a mere recieval auto-entitles someone to an Wikipedia article.
 * It has not got much anything to do about the wiki-notability of the awards, themselves and the connections are tangential.
 * Whilst, initial response to the formulation of NAWARD was heartening; the editors lost interest soon-after and it was left to wither.
 * As it currently stands; it has not been actively vetted by the community. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying of the history. I had read this link somewhere on Articles for deletion/J. B. Gaynor or Articles for deletion/Kohl McCormick Early Childhood Teaching Awards, before I linked it here. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.