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. While some editors feel there's inadequate sourcing directly detailing the BLP subject, the trend of the discussion since User:Beccaynr's source presentation is clearly towards a keep outcome. Since there are a number of unsourced contentious assertions in the article it might be wise to remove these assertions until they are fully cited. BusterD (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant enough for me to have many reviews. And it says "co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". -- GreenC02:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no book review as GreenC claimed. Please check the reference links properly. All are news about the books' release. The Google Scholar search shows very poor numbers of citations. Twinkle1990 (talk)
ACADEMIC and JOURNALISM are different from AUTHOR, only need to pass one. Your trying to set a high bar for notability when it's actually pretty permissive. Not sure why you say "only one or two reviews"... see the reviews at Wasbir_Hussain#Bibliography. You may not like all of them, but it's clearly more than "one or two". -- GreenC05:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your not required to agree that NAUTHOR is a valid notability guideline, but the community believe so, why it exists. Many of those links are dead and need archive URLs added. You seem to have a bias to delete this article, your not being objective and fair with the sources or the guidelines. -- GreenC14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, please don't misrepresent other users' comments. Nowhere did Twinkle1990 say that disagree with WP:NAUTHOR. They made the perfectly valid comment that the subject here does not meet the criteria of NAUTHOR (an opinion I share). That is entirely different. Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. I would dispute the claim that India does not have a culture of book reviewing. I have frequently seen Indian authors with many book reviews in Indian newspapers, more than I would expect for comparable book publications in the US. We do have two proper major newspaper reviews (not just publication announcements) of Homemakers Without The Men in The Hindu and Hindustan Times. We also a have what looks like a small-press magazine review of Tarun Gogoi in Fried Eye. As far as I can tell, all the rest of the book references in the article are either publication announcements rather than reviews, or stories about related topics that happen to mention the books. I also found another review of Tarun Gogoi in what appears to be a very minor newspaper/magazine, Indigenous Herald[1]. Four reviews of three books is enough for me for WP:AUTHOR, but only just barely. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My main concern is this is a BLP and I think the sourcing is not there. I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbiased RS about the subject. In this case I think works created by the subject may be notable, but the article subject is lacking sources for notability. // Timothy :: talk06:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as if some of these reviews do not discuss the subject, e.g. "The author, Wasbir Hussain, has been writing on insurgency and ethnic strife in Assam and other northeastern states for more than two decades" ("Assam's widows of violence: defying all odds", Hindustan Times 14 Sep 2006), but in any event, secondary coverage of his work is about him. This issue seems to arise from time to time in AfD discussions, but BLPs about football players are about their football games, actor BLPs focus on their acting career - this is the work that makes them notable.
And on ProQuest, I am finding more coverage about his journalism career, including the 2022 Prafulla Chandra Baruah Memorial Journalist Award ("AAJU announces journalism awards", Assam Tribune 11 Apr 2022 ProQuest2649149301, for his work as chief editor of North East Live), and the 2006 Kunjabala Devi Memorial Award ("KUNJABALA, PABINDRA SARMA AWARDS ANNOUNCED", Hindustan Times 16 Nov 2006, ProQuest469490762, "Wasbir Hussain, a senior journalist has been chosen for the award for his 12- part series of articles on widows of militants, civilians, etc, who lost their husbands during insurgency and other forms of violence."), 2008 Rotary Award for Excellence in Journalism ("JOURNALIST TO BE AWARDED", Hindustan Times 01 Dec 2008 ProQuest471390212).
There is also coverage of some political activity, e.g. ("Indigenous tag splits ‘Assamese Muslims’ wide open" The Hindu 22 July 2022 ProQuest2692500508), ("HC helps to end tussle between Ajan Peer Durgah managing committees" Assam Tribune, 04 Mar 2022 ProQuest2635898009), as well as interviews with him about his work, particularly biographies. It tends to be more difficult to find sources for journalists because their own bylined work tends to fill up the search results, but this is only some of the coverage I have found on ProQuest about him that also seems to support WP:BASIC notability as a journalist and author. Beccaynr (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 - In addition to this, Anima Guha, a notable person, said "The book, through real life stories, narrates the struggles of Assamese women who have lost their bread winning partners to insurgency or ethnic strife. Through the book Hussain has brought out the pathos, trauma, struggle and challenges of these remarkable women," see DNA India
6 - Review in Fried Eye (seems reliable as a magazine)
And all these sources are reliable.
WP:AUTHOR says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." which has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and his book has been primary subject of article in Hindustan Times and The Sentinel (Guwahati) and also primary subject of review in Indigenous Herald (seems reliable as a public affairs magazine), Fried Eye and The Hindu.
Comment There is often a choice to make between an article about an author and a work. In this case the sources are about the work, not the author. It makes sense to have an article about the work with the little that is known about the author beyond their work is in an About the author section with a name redirect. If the body of reliable BLP sources eventually has enough information about the person, an article can be written.
By this references, we can say that his book can be written as significant work and Wikipedia:NAUTHOR says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." so because of his books we can say that he passes third criteria of NAUTHOR. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk !09:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In 2023, any book review is not significant but book review in 2006 can be considered as significant as India has no culture of book reviewing. India started doing review about book from 2010s which means before 2010s, only major work by notable authors were reviewed by book critics. By this we can say that book review by The Hindu is a significant review that passes WP:NBOOK as well as WP:NAUTHOR. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk !01:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, and while there are reviews with in-depth coverage of his some of his work as an author, there also appears to be more than trivial coverage of his career in independent, reliable, secondary sources that can be combined under this guideline to help support his notability as a journalist and author. Due to what appears to be a well-recognized career, it will take some time to edit and expand this article, but it appears we have sources that help support his notability and can help develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of either of the subjects does not depend on that of the other. That discussion is about someone who has written only one book with lots of reviews. This one is about someone who has written lots of books but with fewer reviews. The two discussions should be treated as independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Assam, internet was launched for public use in n1998. However, book reviews were regular in print newspapers. I am sure about that. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly speaking, as a daughter of parents who have contextual differences from each others, I am being able to understand many major languages of India. My father keeps 10 newspapers of different languages as old parents are fond of. Print newspapers help a lot. My father was a book reviewer since late 1980s, and at that time book writers used to give a free book and INR 500 after the review was published, even if it was wholly negative. Even so, in W#ikipedia, I don't follow my father's way instead of Wikipedia rules. I don't review or dig into other articles as I am prone to TV and Films. I just stick to TV
I have access to the Wikipedia Library, so I can view more sources, including on ProQuest, that appear to support his notability generally per WP:BASIC, and particularly as a journalist and author. However, at that GScholar link, there is:
a critical review of a book he contributed a chapter to: Missing Boundaries: Refugees, Migrants, Stateless and Internally Displaced Persons in South Asia, by Alan B. Anderson, Summer 2005, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 78, 2 (full text available via Gale, "Wasbir Hussain addresses the outflow of Bandladeshi migrants into neighbouring areas in northeastern India")
what appears to be a reference to him in the "Economic and Development Policies in the North Eastern Region and the Current Condition" chapter of the Northeast India and Japan (2021) book that I have not searched the T&F database for to determine if I can access, although I have previously found this database to be a good source for Assamese writers. The quote I can view on GScholar is "… Wasbir Hussain observed that the use of the term tends to ignore the distinct identity and sub-nationalist aspirations of diverse tribes, customs, and cultures and, very importantly, the …".
"Spectacles of empowerment: election and news coverage in India’s marginalised states" by the same author of the above source, with an in-depth overview of the history of news, including two paragraphs of interview at p. 182 with "Wasbir Hussain, a prominent and respected face of Assamese news television, hosts a popular show on the television channel News Live" and appears to quote his work at p. 166.
And there appear to be further sources that refer to and quote him - these results are farther back, because his own writing fills about seven pages of results, but he also appears to be regularly cited in a variety of scholarly works.
@Twinkle1990, Sorry but I don't know why we need to redact that username? I am unaware of any such process, please let me know why we need to redact, So that I can take care of it from now onwards. thanks QueerEcofeminist🌈02:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QueerEcofeminist, since you asked, you made a connection that has not been given on-wiki. You are of course welcome to suspect that a user has a COI (and state as such), but saying "this editor has a COI because they are XYZ person in real life" is not okay. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you would like further clarification (mainly to avoid pulling this discussion too far off-course). Primefac (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is essentially no discussion of whether multiple reliable, independent sources cover this individual in reasonable depth. Discussion of "WP:AUTHOR" or the like is unhelpful without that. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems fine to me with the sources presented. It's not a slam dunk, but it's at least 4 decent pieces that cover the person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Points above and sourcing in the article indicate that there are multiple independent reviews of his work, so my assessment is that he passes WP:AUTHOR. CT55555(talk) 06:07, 22 March 2023 (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.