Talk:Anurag Sinha

Review for Template Removal. Cleaned up article for NPOV etc.

Hello @CNMall41

Hope you are well! This is in reference to the edit I made with respect to the Paid Article Template put by you. With the help of your suggestions, I have made changes that now ascribed to a neutral [POV], settled tone and language to Wikipedia, removed redundant information and duplicate citations. Removed all influences that seemed promotional and cleaned the page. I edit on Wikipedia with avid interest in Indian Art, Culture and Theology. I like to keep my edits objective and unbiased to the best of my knowledge. I have unbiased appreciation for the work of Anurag Sinha, but hence my concern for the health of this page.

The article is verifiably correct to the references and facts. The article page is clean and the template can be reviewed and removed with your due diligence and consideration.

Regards, Fixing001 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The actor is credited with International Film Festival Awards. The article is clean and connotations are unbiased. Please read the article. Unless necessary and proven with transactional evidence, there is no need to suspect and malign the credibility of the page. Centrepiece12 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The page is not fixed. Just checking the first line under early life shows the references are not reliable or do not support. Also, based on the narrow focused SPA editing, I would say that there are still conflicts of interest editing the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41

@Fixing001

Dear Sir, @CNMall41

With all the due respect, my citation was from a reliable and unbiased source.

The references in Early life seem fine, they are from leading news agencies that are credible and reliable third party sources.

Can I request you to fix the page issue, instead of just reverting edits and removing citations, which are reliable and also a part of a decently read News Agency.

Also, according to me, the article reads unbiased and abides by Neutrality Point of View. The informations are factual and accurate. I removed the paid template because it is not justified. It must be removed or be provided with transactional settlement done by the User. Such templates must be provided with confirmational proof or else it just becomes a matter trivial aspersion on a person. And anyone can accuse any editor or user of paid creation. You must consider this request and also the appeal of other editors apart from me.

Thank you. Centrepiece12 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I normally do not do cleanup on page that have a history of undisclosed paid editing. As far as "It must be removed or be provided with transactional settlement done by the User", that was already provided. I gave you a specific example and yet you have provided nothing but a fallacy by assertion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

You must check the citational reference that I provided. It is available in the public domain. And it seems reliable and as normal to any public eye. It’s a factual representation, and you cannot twist words to call it ‘a fallacy of assertion’. All facts are assertions, at the end of the day.

Please present the proof of transaction made by the person concerned in the article ? I see the creator has marked been marked “Red”, but does that imply the person concerned to engage in paid creation. If so, please present the proof here and delete the page. Or else please stop discrediting the article and the person concerned. This is a talk page, and as another amateur but a fellow editor, I want to present what I think of it.

Thanks Centrepiece12 (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I have checked the references, hence why the tag is there. And yes, creator was blocked for undisclosed paid editing. At this point, it may be a WP:CIR issue but unless the cleanup is made, the tag should note be removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I see there was a cleanup made for language and eulogising, by @fixing001, if you find that incomplete then as a senior editor, i request you must do it yourself. As of now, it looks fine and neutrality is maintained.

As far as the references are concerned they are cited from absolutely credible and reliable news agencies. I also added one, which you reverted.

I have said what I have to say. I cannot engage in proving an article page to be reliable.

Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I will take care of it. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I did what I could but after looking at the references more in-depth, I am not sure he meets notability guidelines. The only acceptable references I can find to show notability would be this. The rest are paid media, NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, mentions, or interviews. Are you able to point out the references you feel establish notability? I do not want to remove anything further from the page at the moment as it is not a good practice to remove information and then nominate for deletion. At this point, I am hoping there is something you know that shows notability that I am unable to locate in a Google search. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to clean. I am not totally aware of NEWSORGMEDIA list. But i believe HT, TOI , PTI, The Week, Rediff, NDTV, ANI News to be reliable and credible in the Indian News Agencies where the person is talked about in a notable and admirable light. Connotations may differ. I have checked the references from the organising bodies and articles from the news agencies and find them to be accurate enough.

Also, to add my point of view, all publishing in the indian media is majorly paid. All information published in media is either paid or for some other benefits. If that’s the case, there’s an actual reason not to believe most of the articles in the media and also most of the references in Wikipedia.

Appreciate your cleaning up. As for the google search, all information in the public domain available is factual. We may choose what we want to agree with or not.

The article is looking good enough to disengage the NPOV or the paid template.

Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I think there is a misunderstanding here. The article is NOT okay. The media you pointed out is in fact unreliable with the exception of one. I think the best thing to do is recommend for deletion and have a discussion there. I will do so shortly. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are getting carried away. I had only requested to remove the paid template. After you have cleaned up, you are suggesting for deletion. Well, if this was the case you must have never let the page be created. Your inference is seeming to be biased now. The reference sources in this article are used in numerous other Wikipedia articles as well, how do we just the notability and credibility of them then ?

However, i respect your seniority and your opinion. Please delete the page, if you like.

Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, I attempted to clean it up for removal of the tag. However, I found that it likely doesn't meet notability guidelines and doing further cleanup would likely result in the page being reduced to only a couple sentences. Doing heavy cleanup like that prior to an AfD nomination is frowned upon. You are more than welcome to opine in the discussion of course, but I don't think you and I are getting anywhere here on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are indulging in provocation to prove you’re correct. Please refer this case to senior editors and administrators for opinion. My knowledge about Wikipedia rules is limited. However this nomination for deletion seems fishy. Hope fellow editors may contribute productively to this. Fixing001 (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The case was referred at your request. You are welcome to join the discussion here should you wish. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, you were insinuating that the article is created by paid creation. When I am requesting you to remove the template as you are not citing any transactional evidence, you are not doing so. Now, after a many months of creation, with you being fine with the references, you are saying the articles are from media articles that are paid. Well, that’s not the case. Please check the article history, you will find citations that are relevant and reliable sources. Centrepiece12 (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment of Article

The article page is cited with credible news sources from TOI, Rediff, Press Trust of India, ANI and other reliable media sources and are NOT paid articles. The language and context is neutral and does intent to promote the subject.

I previously mentioned to remove the templates as it was not cited with proof of any transactional settlement and merely felt to discredit the article. I have looked into the credibility of references and have found them to be factual and accurate.

The article being nominated for deletion is not justified.

@CNMall41 you must please assess it objectively and without any influence that you may or not have.

The previous topic must be read properly and also the case in the discussion page at deletion. Centrepiece12 (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)