Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:12, 29 April 2008

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. Sandstein (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hema Sinha

Previous AfD closed as keep in February but notability was never established. Sole RS coverage mentioned her fashion taste, nothing to establish notability in her profession. She exists and does a job, no evidence she passes WP:BIO TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be particularly notable. Video jockeys - being one is apparently her best-known role - are a dime a dozen. Blair - Speak to me 00:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the person isn't notable enough yet, but thanks for trying. Dwilso 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notability is judged by coverage in reliable sources. This HINDU ARTICLE is ok in this case as it can be considered as a most prominent independent reliable sources among Indian news papers. Therefore, a strong reason to keep it. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from WP:BIO "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." that's not in-depth coverage and there aren't multiple sources TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some times it is impossible to provide multiple sources. Most of the sources are non-English and offline in which we have to depend on available sources. Don’t you think that The Hindu news paper is an independent reliable source? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is one source, but it doesn't establish notability. It talks about her fashion, not about why she's a notable VJ. I don't question that she exists or does her job, but that doesn't make her notable. Tamil results are extremely limited as well, I just don't think she's notable. We can't operate on something that may exist somewhere -- it needs to be shown to demonstrate notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough... yet. --vi5in^[talk] 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JNN, Possible bad faith comment by User:Vivin (NotableGuru per WP:JNN). He/she has a bad faith track of targetting my edit and falsely commenting. Check the contributions for more details. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See TRAVELLINGCARI's succinct extract from WP:BIO for the explanation of my vote. No in-depth coverage, and no multiple independent sources. --vi5in^[talk] 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sigh... whatever. If I was really targeting you, I'd probably be running around in all articles you have edited. You'll notice I've only worked on a couple. By all means, go through my contributions. --vi5in^[talk] 05:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TRAVELLINGCARI is the one who earlier also nominated it to AfD. Now he is nominating it to the second time. I don’t know why he is not accepting the previous closer of this AfD as Keep. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I adressed that in my nom, notability was not established in that discussion, nor has it been here. Further according to WP:BIO for entertainers, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." None of which she has done. I re-nominated, which is perfectly allowed per WP:CCC. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep this article. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had already argued with the same reason and subsequently replied in the first AfD and the result was Keep. You are still echoing your same rationale. Who talked about WP:ILIKEIT? I talked about WP:RS because the notability established by the Hindu news paper, India’s top news publishing company. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has been no significant updates since the last nomination, and all the arguments being used by TRAVELLINGCARI have already been exhausted in the last nomination's discussion. Lets wait sometime longer instead of just pushing for deletion immediately after the last result. What's being done here is like an appeal on the same grounds. It's irrelevant. --Flexijane (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see this pretty much Flexijane's way. The single cite isn't much, but the source itself is solid. There's no BLP harm that I see, and the arguments against still are not convincing. It doesn't appear to be self-promotion or advertising. I'd like to see at least one more citation. Is this link to her show on SunTV useful? BusterD (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment exactly, there have been no significant updates because there's no evidence whatsoever that she's notable. Doing no harm and not being spam are not reasons to keep, not being notable is a good reason to delete. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, from WP:NOHARM, "As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here." There have been no valid, policy reasons for keeping this article and no evidence she's notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:NORHARM subclause is from the very unreliable essay (not even a guideline) WP:AADD, which not only contradicts actual policies and guidelines, but is self-contradictory in many places (it tries to rescue itself with the WP:ONLYESSAY subclause). While opinions expressed in it might be interesting to some users, it is in no manner policy. --Oakshade (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides being the primary subject of the extremely reliable The Hindu article (not just a "passing mention"), topic is anchor of her own TV show. And so far all of this comes from only English language sources. --Oakshade (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one source, that talks about her fashion. Nothing about her notability in her role. She does a job, that does not establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The The Hindu article is about her and her fashion. Thank you. Being a janitor would warrant a "She does a job" argument. Hosting her own national Sun TV Network show does not. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering the nom's last comments - "She does a job" apparently referring to the topic hosting her own TV show - and the renomination of this article less than three months after that last AfD (nominated by the same user) which was decided as KEEP is indicating this might be a WP:POINT nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, good faith anyone? It was not a pointy nom but rather a re-nom after an AfD with low participation and no-notability established. Someone doing their job does not make them notable. Not all people in the media are notable, some have been kept, some deleted. It depends on the person. Show me where she meets WP:BIO, especially multiple independent sources, which have not been provided in either deletion discussion. This one is actually interesting and it has some participation, but notability has not yet been established clearly TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that notability is not clearly established. The Hindu news is clearly shows the notability (Just read it in a couple of time). And how can you say that there is no other RS available? If Hindu has an article, I AGF, think that there must be local news articles about her which is impossible to find in net. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, public figure, notability established, including in vernacular press. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- more than a single source is necessary to establish notability per WP:BIO, especially when the coverage is shallow, as the single source here is. Jfire (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just added a sify news to the article about her identity (the article is not independent about her). There are many google hits (ignore about blogs & other) also showing the clear notability that she is prominent. I request you to take off some time & find more local references, if possible. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added are a passing mention in an article on an unrelated topic and a source affiliated with the subject (the TV station where she is employed). These do not help to establish notability. There do not appear to be further reliable sources that cover the subject in depth; only a single source with shallow coverage, thus failing WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Reliable sourcing provided (in english) to verify claim to notability. Undoubtedly, if these sources could be found in English, much more could be found in other languages. Pastordavid (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't disagree, but no Tamil sources appear to exist either. I can't imagine that a notable person involved in media lacks online sources in either language. That's my issue TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you say "I don't disagree" to Pastordavid's "Reliable sourcing provided (in english)" comment, then you completely contradict yourself by saying the false statement the person "lacks online sources in either language." It's getting impossible to argue with you as your statements are contradictory. --Oakshade (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Apologies if I wasn't clear, I meant yes there is a source in English. Keyword there, a source. One. Not enough to pass WP:BIO as I read it. And no, there are no apparently reliable Tamil sources. I don't operate on the idea that there could be some phantom information out there -- somewhere. I'm done here unless someone says something that hasn't been covered ad nauseam. I'm working on an article of someone who's actually notable, as in 200+ source notable, not borderline maybe somewhere someone cares notableTRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although this is a re-nomination, the space of time between (2 months) is plenty of time, not a sign that this is a pointy nomination. Pastordavid (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A borderline case, to be certain, but the argument for her notability is more than adequate. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a controversial article WHEW! After looking through the last AFD and this AFD, it seems the main case is establishing notability, which in my opinion has been done. Currently on the article are three references or outside sources. The newspaper, SunTV network, and sify online. All of these are independent of each other and establish that Hema Sinha does exist. What else is asked out of WP:BIO? I believe Travellingcari says If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." In this case, it seems there is a primary independent source and two secondary sources. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:45, 29 April 2008 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was  '''keep.''' [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] ([[User talk:Sandstein|talk]]) 19:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 ===[[Hema Sinha]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
 <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha}}</ul></div>
 :{{la|Hema Sinha}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Hema Sinha|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination)]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination)|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 23#{{anchorencode:Hema Sinha}}|View log]])</noinclude>
@@ Line 44: / Line 52: @@
 *'''Keep''' A borderline case, to be certain, but the argument for her notability is more than adequate. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] ([[User talk:Ecoleetage|talk]]) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' This seems to be a controversial article WHEW! After looking through the last AFD and this AFD, it seems the main case is establishing notability, which in my opinion has been done. Currently on the article are three references or outside sources. The newspaper, SunTV network, and sify online. All of these are independent of each other and establish that Hema Sinha does exist. What else is asked out of [[WP:BIO]]? I believe [[User:Travellingcari|Travellingcari]] says ''If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." In this case, it seems there is a primary independent source and two secondary sources. <font face="Ravie">[[User:Dustihowe|'''<font color="#ff0000">D</font><font color="#ff6600">u</font><font color="#009900">s</font><font color="#0000ff">t</font><font color="#6600cc">i</font>''']][[User talk:Dustihowe|<sup>complain/compliment</sup>]]</font> 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>