As noted, an article about this subject was previously deleted in 2012, and there was another deletion discussion before that. The quality of the sourcing does not seem very high. The AchhiKhabre publication seems to have been a crowdsourced website and thus a publisher of user-generated content. The Princh source seems to be a blog post on the website of a software company. Many sources show the same symptoms of problems, such as general vagueness and describing a very large monetary award from an American organisation called the "Man of the Millennium" award, but without naming what organisation supposedly presented this award. Awards of this magnitude generally would be easily verifiable. It would also be nice to have better clarification and verification of the "Best Librarian in India" award. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- BarrelProof, I agree with your assessment. It's unfortunate that the government does not publish a reliably sourced biosketch of the people it's handing out these awards to. Not only India media/news in general suffers from lower coverage in online indexes, but reliability also appears to be going down — complicating BLPs. I did review those earlier discussions and was on fence about a few sources. For those awards, I can't say what the true source is, they all seem to have, by now, copied each other resulting in same information regurgitated in several places. Please feel free to tag sections / sources that appear dubious. — WeWake (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I suspect that some publications relax their fact-checking discipline when it comes to "puff pieces". Speaking of copying, the article was also deleted twice for copyright infringement before the first deletion discussion, as noted in a comment by MelanieN in the first deletion discussion and recorded in the public logs of the page. Much of this may have originated in the "Practising what he preaches" article in The Hindu of 22 August 2004 (which is cited in the article). I just deleted the citations to AchhiKhabre, since it seems clear that was unreliable user-generated content. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- The article in Mangalore Today is published as "opinion". Per WP:NEWSOPED, I suggest that means it is unreliable. It also links to a video in which the narrator prefaces her remarks with "We hear that..." and "We can't vouch for the ..." and "If some popular sites and social networks are to be believed ..." and "It is said that ..." and says "We wonder if this news is true or ..." — BarrelProof (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- BarrelProof, the article appears to be an editorial (author being "Mangalore Today News Network"), so per WP:NEWSOPED, it doesn't appear to be speak to unreliability per se but the manner in which we cite to support facts within the article. Also, the video is not owned or produced by the network which produced the article and appears to be linked — which is to say that as long as we attribute that this editorial "claims this fact," the source should be able to stay. — WeWake (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Another cited source is a blog of the Manav Ekta Mission (https://manavektamission.org/). This is some quasi-religious advocacy organisation. It does not seem like an objective reliable source, and it credits Wikimedia for its photo illustration. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
