Talk:Vir Sanghvi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is he so notable?
Contents |
[edit] Wrong age
In the article, the author notes that Vir Sanghvi took editorship of the Bombay magazine when he was 17. He later says that he worked as the editor of Sunday magazine for 12 years. 17+12=29, and not 23 as the author notes. Someone must correct it.
[edit] Who is he? Does he really merit Wiki entry?
Not sure about this guy. Looks like an unpaid commercial. Jonathan.
- No, this is not an unpaid commercial. He is an influential member of the Indian Media, being the editor of the one of the largest circulation papers in India. --Rev.bayes 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] a columnist or a real sucker
Vir Sanghavi is a superb writer and brilliant journalist. Of course he deserves to be on Wikipedia. In fact it would be interesting to get more facts on the guy who has risen to this level all by himself and is not a conformist. He is actually one of the few journalists who can call a spade a spade, unlike pandering journalists who suck up to celebrities and politicians.
MU
as you can figure out this guy is a butt licker of national congress party. And most of his comments are sarcastic. I wonder if he has anything of his own to say except criticising others idea.
- I am not going to try and reply to this comment, except perhaps say that you need to go and read the Wikipedia principles, and try to understand how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter what you or I think. Is there a trustable reference to whatever somebody says?? --Rev.bayes 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Guys, He's perhaps the top guy in Indian media; and calling him names is not appropriate. He merits an entry in Wikipedia because of the top positions he has in media. And his business is criticising, as editors are not expected to just give news. Though many of his views are plain diatribe, they are well researched. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleting Commentary about Rude food
All the material in the section following Rude food sounded too much like an individual opinion, it was unreferenced, and it didn't have too much of pertinence. --Rev.bayes 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)