This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.
Where to get help
If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.
To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.
Once you save your changes using the "Publish changes" button below, you will be able to resubmit your draft for review by pressing the "Resubmit" button that will appear here.
Comment: Please remove the bombardment of references almost none of which meet the criteria against which references are judged. The welter of chaff conceals the wheat, or even the existence of wheat. No reviewer will plough through all of these to perform a useful review.We are also not interested in what they write in the press. We are interested in what people say about them with significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sourcesLet me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Writer, columnist, researcher and advocate
Shivanshu K. Srivastava is an Indian writer, newspaper columnist[1] and legal professional, known for his significant contributions to print media and legal discourse. With more than 200 publications, his columns are regularly featured in leading newspapers including The Indian Express[2][3], Hindustan Times[4][5], State Times, The Asian Age, and others, where his columns are regularly published on a wide array of legal and social issues.[6]
Shivanshu's work covers diverse themes including population control, legal policy[7], and social justice[8], and his perspectives have gained much recognition particularly in print media. He is a staunch advocate for animal rights[9][10], consistently speaking out against animal cruelty and pushing for stronger legal protections for animals. Alongside his legal practice, he is committed to literature and academia[11], having contributed numerous articles and research papers to law journals[12][13] and has authored several book chapters.[14] His celebrated biography titled "Long Live The Revolution" on the Indian revolutionary Bhagat Singh was prominently featured by Hindustan Times on page-4 of the newspaper.