Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sanjay Dixit


 * 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. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)'''.

Sanjay Dixit
Lack of notability. Wikiquote article created 18 October 2021. Despite article claims of links to an article or draft on the English Wikipedia these have not managed to persist, with concerns on demonstrated notability W:WP:A7, unambiguous promotion, W:WP:G11 and the draft failing w:WP:G13 to 6 month expiry. w:Sanjay Dixit and w:Draft:Sanjay Dixit. Wikiquote article creator seems to have created d:Q116168166 on 11 January 2023, possibly aware articles in (main) space in the Special:UnconnectedPages list were being scrutinised. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Vote closes: 08:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, for lack of notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

--ᘙ (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. You wrote that the article was deleted (speedy deletion or draft deletion) but did you notice that the article at wikipedia was deleted in 2009 because of lack of notability? Sanjay Dixit has become a relatively well known person only after the publication of his first book in 2018. Before Stephen King published his first book, his article would probably have been deleted at wikipedia also for lack of notability. How can you judge Dixit's notability in 2023 based on a speedy deletion in 2009? Don't you agree that any decision on notability should be more recent? There is also a speedy deletion in 2019 because of promotion, but without the ability to see the deleted article one cannot judge this decision. the 2019 speedy deletion for promotion and the draft deletion were probably not due to notability. why do you believe that the existence or non-existence of an article at an encyclopedia like wikipedia should matter for the question whether one should have an article at wikiquote (which is not an encyclopedia)? Do you believe that having an article in an encyclopedia is the criteria for notability that should be the deciding factor whether to have an article at a compendium of quotes? How do my edits at wikidata matter about the notability of this person?  There are over 340 articles in the category and subcategories Articles with no corresponding English Wikipedia article. I just added a few dozen today more to the category, so probably there are thousands more of article on wikiquote that should still be added to the category. Why is this particular article not as notable as the other articles in that category? Have you researched the author Sanjay Dixit before creating the deletion?  At least on wikipedia, it is necessary to do this before any deletion nomination. It seems you only searched about him on wikipedia and nowhere else?  I don't know that much about Sanjay Dixit but the following from a quick search seems to indicate he is notable enough for a wikiquote article
 * he published several books, including a trilogy (fiction) and a non-fiction book. The books have forewords by very prominent authors and there have been multiple reviews for example
 * he created an annual literary festival, and is its chairman, participants included very prominent people like Subramanian Swamy and Narendra Kohli and many others
 * because this is wikiquote, one could mention he is also quoted by others or in news articles, for example:
 * news articles about his role in politics in Rajasthan
 * example coverage Times of India there are plenty more of articles  just at this news site alone which are only or mostly about him
 * @ᘙ, I presume by you you mean me. An article in the English Wikipedia is the best way of confirming notability, and if that isn't or can't be done then scrutiny here will be far more intense. I always recommend w:WP:THREE as an excellent essay, and that is in my opinion your best chance of getting this kept if you are not going to stand up an article on the English Wikipedia. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 00:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

the essay is written for an encyclopedia not for a compendium of quotes like wikiquote. the essay is also misleading :at wikipedia, multiple means two not three. for example a book article only needs to show two independent reviews, a third review is not necessary

it is also not wikiquote policy that a wikipedia article must exist, but even then the subject would meet notability criteria of wikipedia as even the links above show that he was discussed in multiple independent sources, some of the news sources are actually only or mostly about him and there are multiple reviews of his books

but for a compendium of quotes all one needs to show is that the subject has been quoted by multiple notable people or organizations, which is also shown in the links above

also, by all objective criteria this person is among the most notable in this category Category:Articles with no corresponding English Wikipedia article which has hundreds of articles and many more could be added so why is this person being singled out? --ᘙ (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @: I have in good faith given what I see as the best suggestion for this article to avoid deletion at VfD. You are of course welcome to ignore it. My current intention may be to say no more on the matter until the point when I may decide to vote. Hopefully if i do, and I may not, the first three citations I look at will contain two w:WP:RS. thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 23:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @: thanks and i am not trying to annoy you but i am not good at selecting which three sources might best satisfy your or the encylopedia's (wikipedia) criteria. my selection will reflect what i believe is important, which will be different from your selection, so please take a look at the links yourself. if the encyclopedia wikipedia criteria is important for you, it only needs significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. multiple means at least two not three. this is easily satisfied, just pick a link from above from times of india and from indian express. well here are three example links which are mostly about dixit, but as i said i am not good at selecting, please also look at the links above, thanks   --ᘙ (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Recuse: *keep: (as nom.) On the balance of probability, and to a degree as I've glanced at one or two sources and checked a review, I am reasonably certain this there is enough to sustain an article on the English Wikipedia. I'd really prefer to see an article there, and failing that some of the bio at the top of the article fully cited in leiu of that.  But I'm reasonable convinced of notability, an have even been mulling running his book through my project Egg to create a wikidata item (it would need to join group awaiting that) although there isn't an online borrowable version.  Don't believe subject is BLP1E either. When I nominate this for VfD there was insufficent represntation of notability in the article in my opinion but I was also minded there was some possibility it might emerge. Thankyou. == User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 01:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have elected to recuse from this particular VfD and strike my previous ill-advised vote. -- 15:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, conceivably notable, but page is not up to Wikiquote standards. Second quote on page is a tweet; third is self-promotion; fourth is mindless attacking of every other political idea/person/party he can think of; last quote is scarcely any better. As far as I understand it, Wikiquote is not a place for axe-grinding. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2023 (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.