Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. S. Chockalingam

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Chockalingam[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A "renowned" journalist according to the page but references fall well short of showing notability. CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how do the sources fail to show notability? The first source is an extensive biography of the subject. The second, indicates that he was co-founder of the Tamil literary journal Manikkodi. The fourth indicates extensive role in pre-independence journalism. Other sources refer to him as an "important nationalist journalist" (p.1895) , "pioneering Tamil journalist", "revolutionary Tamil writer", "outstanding writer ... well-known journalist" (p.105). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed out one extensive biography but the rest are as you say ("indicate"). We need in-depth coverage and not just mentions. Is there something other than the first reference that is in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear unwilling to examine sources yourself, however, the onus is on you to demonstrate why the sources I've mentioned do not satisfy the GNG/BIO. Please note WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Moreover, he can be accorded presumed notability due to NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why the pointed comments. It is as if I just came along and randomly recommended a page for deletion. I did a BEFORE and read through your links above. Mentions do not add up to notability. If you are unwilling to point out in-depth coverage, there is nothing else I can review. As far as conduct, keep in mind this is a discussion, not an argument. Please keep it corrigible. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you find this pointed, I apologise, but you have not addressed the responses to the nomination. Please address the P&G issues raised (BASIC, NEXIST, NPOL) and note the Indian Express archive where there is extensive SIGCOV reporting of Chockalingam. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did address those, just obviously not to your satisfaction. And at this point, your aggressiveness is not something I am about to entertain further. I will let the AfD play out as it will.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, thank you. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points raised by Goldsztajn, which shows the subject meets notability guidelines. And as a general comment, I'm not sure why this AfD was started only three hours after the article was created. Would have been nice to first ask the editor who created the article to address any concerns before going straight to AfD. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I was opting for Delete as the page has poor to unreliable to unverifiable sources on the page but in light of sources on the subject's achievement by Goldsztajn, that still shows trivial coverage on the subject, I think Draftify is needed to improve the page with significant indepth coverage on the subject instead of trivial, passing coverage and entries in the sources. As of now, page fails WP:GNG and needs improvement with WP:SIGCOV in reliable and verifiable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific; which sources are "poor", "unreliable" and "unverifiable"? The three sources I analysed present in the article fit none of those descriptions. NB: WP:NEXIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What three sources you analyzed that you believe does not fit none of those descriptions? RangersRus (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources mentioned in my keep !vote above....and, FWIW, you've asked me a question, without replying to mine. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three sources are on the page and neither one has indepth coverage on the subject. What three you analyzed on the page? Now because you said you analysed three sources on the page, you shortlisted the reliability yourself so I thought it is helpful for me to go over those specfic three if you would have mentioned. RangersRus (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I mentioned are the sources which appear in the first, second and fourth footnotes in the article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dinamani (subject was editor here), Sahapedia and Madras Musings? RangersRus (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've still not replied to my question. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dinamani is not a secondary independent source (subject was editor here). Sahapedia is a non-profit organization source with passing comments. Madras musings is poor with passing comments on the subject. Google book short stories (fiction) is unreliable and fails verification. Google book "in those days there was no coffee" fails verification. Pdf file by Srinivas is poor with only a passing comment (the comment also begins with "it is said that....) and the page directly copied the line from the pdf file. The last google source Tamil prose after Bharathi has no significant coverage either and all it says "Chockalingam published his magazine, Gandhi, again at a very cheap price (quarter ana). Later, he became the editor of the Dinamani. He had the skill to express ideas emotionally and with youthful verve in lively Tamil." Its same repeated on all other sources that he became editor of the Dhimani. No significant and indepth coverage on his biography, work as journalist and to be even notable as freedom fighter. RangersRus (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He died more than 50 years ago; it's not as if he exercises any control over Dinamani. Being a non-profit has no bearing on reliability. BIO, NEXIST, NPOL all indicate the thresholds for notability which are firmly established here. Best to let others express their views. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Draftifying cannot be a substitute for deletion; the point of AfD is to determine notability, not assess the quality of an article's current content. Moreover, an article is *less* likely to be improved in draft space. Chockalingam is discussed on four pages (144, 146, 148, 157) of A. Ganesan's "The Press in Tamil Nadu and the Struggle for Freedom, 1917-1937" (1988). Finally, he satisfies WP:NPOL: he was an MLA of the Madras Presidency (p.46) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is discussed on all those four pages? Are they entries or passing comment or indepth coverage? RangersRus (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His contributions to journalism are discussed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to find it or verify it. Is the discussion indepth coverage? Entry? Passing comment? Can you verify?RangersRus (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have access to Google Books? On page 144, it talks about his taking over the editorship of Dhinamani and how he increased readership. Pages 146 and 148 are not visible to me, page 157 contains a footnote discussing him starting Vandemataram in 1931, his arrest for civil disobedience, the effect on the newspaper and him starting as editor at Dhinamani in 1935. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for indepth coverage on the subject as journalist, writer and freedom fighter like the lead says but I am just finding passing comments. You said "Chockalingam is discussed in four pages (144, 146, 148, 157)" but you are not able to verify page 146 and 148. I was able to check 144 and 157 and there is no discussion of indepth coverage here but passing comments. Page 144 says "Chockalingam Pillai became the editor of the Dinamani in 1935. Under his editorship the paper's circulation increased to 11,000 in 1936." Page 157 says "Chockalingam Pillai started the Vandemataram in 21 September, 1931. He was arrested for his active part in civil disobedience. Due to his inability to pay security the paper ceased publication security." These do not help with the coverage needed on a journalist, writer and freedom fighter. Is there any indepth coverage on him as freedom fighter? RangersRus (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there need to be indepth coverage of him as a freedom fighter? He already clearly satisfies NPOL and BIO. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any significant indepth coverage on his biography in the sources and now you mentioned politician that is no where referred on the page with no sources either. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to him being an MLA is linked above. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was evaluating what was on the page. Source about on page 46 has an entry only and no WP:SIGCOV as politician. I will have others say on all this discussion. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In regards to the discussion above, per the notability guidelines for people "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." It appears there is in-depth coverage of Chockalingam but most of that isn't in English (here's an example of such a book). However, there is still plenty of coverage in English to prove notability, especially by combining reliable sources per the above guideline. For example, I just added a citation to the article from The Guardian which said Chockalingam was a "pioneering Tamil journalist," while the Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature described him as one of the most important nationalist journalists in Tamil. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn and SouthernNights. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Books has an archive of the Indian Express from the 1930s, a simple search reveals extensive coverage of Chockalingam's role in journalism, Tamil language promotion, politics and the Freedom Movement. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all pages from 1930s but do not see "extensive coverage of Chockalingam's role in journalism, Tamil language promotion, politics and the Freedom Movement." RangersRus (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's three I found in a two minute search: "Not Advisable To Call Off Satyagraha. Reply To Critics Of Congress Policy. Reception to Mr Chockalingam" (12 August 1941), "Gandhism Alone Will Lead Us To Final Victory, Mr Chockalingam Replies to Critics of Satyagraha" (27 October 1941), Case Against City Editors, Prosecution Witnesses Examined (27 March 1945). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 125 page overview of Chockalingam's life and works (ISBN 8126020997) written in 2005 by Pon Dhanasekaran, includes seven pages of biography (pp.9-16). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn and a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Madras Presidency from Tenkasi in the 1937 Madras Presidency Legislative Assembly election.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.