Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Karan Singh Grover

This is a long and highly involved discussion, with solid points made for both positions. Counting the nominator, and discounting IP votes, there are two editors who would keep this entry and four who would delete. The value of the page is obscured by the obvious sockpuppetry engaged in by new editors who support the page. That does not detract from the legitimacy of the opinions of the two established editors supporting the page, but as a pattern it is disturbing. The page itself is of a marginally notable person whose attributed quotes are largely derivative of things similarly situated people have said in the past. Taken as a whole, the page is dispensable, and its deletion is no loss to Wikiquote. The deletion, of course, does not preclude the creation of a new page on this subject in the future, if he should happen to say some more quotable things in more reliable venues. BD2412 T 18:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Karan Singh Grover
Non-quotable statements from interviews. Page created by obsessed fan who has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring on the subject's Wikipedia article. — FireflySixtySeven (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If other celebrities, who have worked in same shows as him can have a quotes page, why not him? biased much? all these are legitimate quotes from legitimate sources58.106.172.244 16:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep—(1) I am of the opinion that any person who has acted on television or in film is ipso facto notable enough to be quoted on Wikiquote. Grover has done both.  (2) Whether the page's creator is a fan of the page's subject is irrelevant.  People will always tend to be more active on pages whose topics interest them and less active on pages whose topics do not interest them.  So what?  (3) Whether the editor who created the page has been blocked in the past for edit-warring is irrelevant to the question of whether the actor being quoted is notable enough to have a page on Wikiquote.  Whether an editor edit-wars or not is relevant only to the question of whether said editor should be blocked.  Should the editor in question opt to engage in edit-warring here, then a block may very well be in order, but the page Karan Singh Grover should remain.  (4)  Whether or not the quotes are from interviews is irrelevant.  (5) While I would agree that the second quote currently on the page is definitely not quotable, and suspect the first quote is also not all-too quotable, I believe the other three quotes are quotable, especially the quote about street violence being a reflection of domestic violence.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I doubt that he would be notable to English-speaking audiences. He is probably notable enough in India; does that count?--Abramsky (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Counts for me. As I see it, this being English Wikiquote means simply that quotes must be in English or translated to English, not that the scope of the project is limited to Anglocentrism.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per most logical and rational analysis by, above. -- Cirt (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. These publicity materials are lacking in Quotability. Apart from one quote about "how we behave with women in our houses" (discussed below), none of these quotes would ever appear in a serious compendium of famous quotations – I find no evidence that they have ever been repeated since their original appearance in publicity venues except in fan forums, let alone stood the test of time for enduring relevance in the public mind. The quote about "how we behave with women in our houses" appearing in TellyChakkar.com (which describes its mission as "conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online ... providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution.) is not original to the performer being promoted here; it is blatantly plagiarized from this interview with Trupti Panchal, coordinator of the Special Cell in the Mumbai Police Commission established by the Mumbai police and Tata Institute of Social Sciences to provide pre-litigation intervention to women facing violence. The unscrupulous promotion appeared just three days after the interview with Trupti Panchal, whose words bear no resemblance to a soap-opera pretty-boy. I am not sure whether the edit-warring, [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nkapoor21/Archive sock-puppeting] contributor is an obsessed fan or a paid promoter, but I am sure that it was appropriate for FireflySixtySeven to call the pattern to our attention. When there is evidence that this is part of an extensive campaign, it is very helpful to give a heads-up to look beneath the surface. Beneath the surface here lies not only frivolous promotional puffery, but shameless dishonesty – none of which belongs in our compendium of famous quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of Ningauble's revelation, I created a Misattribution section and moved the domestic violence quote into it. My thanks to Ningauble for catching this misattribution. Thanks to this catch, the page is now even better than before.  (Now, people who think that that quote is actually a Grover quote can come to Wikiquote and discover that it isn't, and that the real quote belongs to Trupti Panchal.) Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Using sock-puppets as an aide in edit-warring is more serious than merely edit-warring; if 58.106.172.244 is a sock-puppet, it would have been helpful for FireflySixtySeven to mention this. After all, while a person could have edit warred in the past without realising that it was inappropriate, one cannot claim innocence on the basis of ignorance if one has engaged in an extensive campaign of disruption.  While that's not, in itself, a reason to delete the page, it is a reason to keep a very close eye on the editor in question. Question:  Does that link indicate that 58.106.172.244 is a sock-puppet?  I see only two IP addresses on that page, neither of which match, but if the evidence is contained in one of the links on that page, I may be missing it.  Specifically, if the evidence is the checkuser link or the log link, I can't see it; instead, I get a message saying, "You do not have permission to check user's IP addresses and other information, for the following reason:  The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Checkusers." Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have certain knowledge that this IP is the same person or persons, and there is no way to tell if this activity is from a PR agency directly or from fellow travelers who follow the PR and repeat it. The salient point is that there is an ongoing long-term aggressive PR campaign affecting the Wikipedia article and related topics. I believe that pattern of behavior is the most likely explanation for why someone would show up posting this PR fluff at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an extensive history of either sockpuppets of one obsessed fan or meatpuppets of a group of obsessed fans based in (I believe) Australia (I hope that is not outing; that is what I have gathered from the SPIs) edit-warring on the subject's Wikipedia article. I see you have already found the Nkapoor21 SPI; there is a newer one for Durr-e-shehwar. I believe this is not a paid promoter, but an obsessed fan, given that they are based in Australia, and accuse everyone whose edits they are displeased with of having a personal vendetta against Grover - I think paid editors don't get quite that personal and hysterical. From the Wikipedia article, it seems like the subject has quite a sizeable female fan following. I believe that many of the IPs/SPAs/new accounts arguing at this VFD are sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the same obsessed person/group. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * paid promoter really?? all these celebrities have fans who edit their pages, why only target this page?? if grover should not have a "quotes" page neither should any of his contemporaries, and all their fans should be banned too! Why don't any of you guys target quotes pages of Karanvir Bohra or Surbhi Jyoti?? Anyway, none of the information provided here was provided with bad intention, it is all well reported in the media, no information is false, the fact one quote turned out to be misattributed that is just chance, that is telly chakkar's fault, that website is not a good source anyway I supposeMe-myself22 (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * — Me-myself22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — Me-myself22 has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AMe-myself22 blocked at Wikipedia] as a sockpuppet of Durr-e-shehwa.
 * It's not only TellyChakkar ' s fault. They don't run these pieces for free, someone directly at fault paid them to do it. "Well reported in the media" is a joke. In terms of running paid promotional materials as "news" TellyChakkar is no different than The Times of India, and India Today, also cited in the article. They don't run these articles and interviews for free, entertainment producers and PR agencies pay them to do it. In the US this is called "payola" and is illegal. In the EU this is called "unfair commercial practice" and is illegal. In India it is called "news", but is actually paid promotional advertisement. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * again in this case...target all indian pages of all indian celebrities...why special attention to him only? Allah-waliah (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * — Allah-waliah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, per Ningauble's arguments - nothing here seems quotable (not to mention the other nonsense surrounding this page, as detailed above). ~ UDScott (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Am not a regular editor of Wikiquote and have no knowledge of policies or notability standards that are required for an article over here. But we are facing a lot of sock-puppeting and meat-puppeting on en-wiki related to Indian TV actors. Many admins and regular editors over there are assuming this to be PR activities for promotion of these subjects and a wiki entry is the best and cheapest way to do that. Check COIN entries and archives for more. Also see this chat. If possible, i would also request regular editors to keep a check on other two articles Karanvir Bohra and Surbhi Jyoti. These three actor, along with our deletion subject, are main leads in the Indian Hindi-language daily soap Qubool Hai and en-wiki article of this frequently sees PR activities by socks. Dharmadhyaksha (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick comment - the Karanvir Bohra page was created by a different set of socks, TekkenJinKazama, who is not related to the Durr-e-shehwar socks. No comment on whether to delete or keep this page, I'm not familiar enough with the Wikiquote policies to give a viable opinion. Ravensfire (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Probably meets notability, but not quotable.-Abramsky (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)