Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smriti Nagpal

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. Per the later, uncontested Keep arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smriti Nagpal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another BBC 100 Women biography article whose main notability is being on that list and being on Forbes 30 Under 30. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article creator is currently blocked for creating promotional articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2018#BBC_100_Women for discussion on the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I'd support a rule whereby sanctions are imposed on repeat creators of promotional articles in Wikipedia. They cause a significant amount of time to be wasted. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly not alone in that sentiment. I think we would definitely need an RfC though, not only to be sure of community consensus for it, but also to make sure it's evenly applied (rather than testing it out piecemeal in individual AfDs). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong keep: Nagpal is included in the BBC 100 Women and Forbes 30 Under 30 listings, and has received significant coverage (Hindustan Times, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle) as a result of the former. She has received further coverage in Deccan Chronicle, ScoopWhoop and WION. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deccan Chronicle, Scoop Whoop and WION were all posted in 2017, after the 100 Women list was assembled for 2015. But yes, more articles like that and especially if they were dated pre-100 Women and pre-Forbes would be helpful. This one posted in 2015 is not helpful. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upped to strong keep following improvements to the article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Puzzled by the nom. She has two substantial profiles in major national outlets--the Times of India and the Hindustan Times--as well as the other recognition, including internationally. I realize the entry is not very well-developed in terms of drawing on those sources but AfD is about available secondary sources, not how they've been used to date... Innisfree987 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India refers to her listing in 100 BBC Women. Hindustan Times refers to her appearing in 30 under 30. Are there sufficient secondary source articles about her that show notability independent of her being listed? Not at the article as currently presented. The ones presented by Bilorv are potentially good sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Short answer: yes the sum of these sources is sufficient. I don't see why noting of this international attention in the profiles would be disqualifying. It'd be a problem if these outlets had simply run two-sentence pieces noting this recognition and nothing more, but instead they ran substantial profiles--detailed coverage rather than trivial mentions, which is our test.

I'm confident I could (and perhaps later this week will) prove the point that we have sufficient secondary source coverage by significantly expanding the entry based on the information these sources offer, but I'll admit I get fussed when it comes to that, as it amounts a major and non-community-approved revision to the standards of AfD, in which showing the existence of sources is supposed to suffice; they do not yet have to be incorporated into the four corners of the extant entry. That's only the standard for CSD. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit based on the sources already there and those I listed above – though more expansion would of course be welcome. I agree that whether sources are included or not in the article is irrelevant for AfD, and WP:BEFORE gives clear guidelines on the level of searching for sources that is expected before bringing something to AfD. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the recently presented articles are helpful as they show she can be notable without having to be on those lists. If it were riding solely on BBC 100 Women and Forbes, it wouldn't survive the AFD.~~I'll go ahead and pull this.~~ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC) updated 21:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about going with anything post-BBC and post-Forbes would be that the notability would be circular. She's famous because she got listed which would then enable her to garner articles and press coverage about her which would then make her famous. I want to ensure she can be Wikipedia-notable because of what she is doing, that she is getting coverage not in response to the list. That the 2017 Deccan and later articles doesn't even mention her placement on such lists is helpful, but if there are any significant coverage articles pre-BBC list, pre-Forbes, let's get some of those added. Like Pieroni's article in 2014 [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As our policies currently stand though, that cycle isn't relevant to the worth of the sources. Discounting them on that basis would be a violation of WP:NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We're not to substitute personal opinion for the editorial judgment of reliable sources. A given Wikipedian may personally think sources should not pay attention to the Forbes or BBC lists, but if one really objects to that, the place to take it up is with the publications in question--or, I suppose, with a differently structured encyclopedia. Wikipedia's project, though, is merely to summarize what reliable press and research journals see fit to cover. By our own declaration, we are not a reliable source, and instead we depend on those that are. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that they raise promotional concerns. WP:SPIP Forbes and BBC 100 Women articles are considered primary and it can be argued that 30 under 30 is promotional, and the articles immediately written afterwards are being scrutinized for short-term notability WP:NRV and WP:NOTNEWS. Is that scrutiny of discounting those considered editorial bias? If a reporter writes a "where are they now" article in 2017, that's fine, in fact, those are the news articles that are now serving as the basis for sourcing this Wikipedia article. They are removed from the promotional cycle of 2015 and are coming from a variety of newspapers that aren't influenced by Forbes or BBC Women or those related news agencies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This exemplifies my bias concern. Forbes and BBC 100 Women articles are considered primary--by whom? They would obviously be primary if the subjects were publishing in Forbes about themselves, but we just received a helpful RS noticeboard opinion noting that the list is written by Forbes staff--and that independent notice is exactly the barometer you cite at WP:SPIP. The proposal we repeatedly depart from policy in handling this entry is concerning to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are primary in the "Here's the list that I made" sense. The news articles in reaction to it is secondary. The only thing that we can do is add a single line about it, and I have to apply my editorial bias in that I don't believe being on 30 under 30 or BBC 100 Women makes her notable for ANYBIO as discussed below. So I removed that line from the lead paragraph as consistent with the Forbes List query and response. But these are giving grounds for more RS articles to be written about her. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to soon tap out because the outcome is so clear, but before I go, "Here's a list I made"--or "here's an essay I wrote", "here's my journal article"--could be primary sources, but only if we were debating an entry about the person who made the list/essay/article. But instead we are using them on one of the topics of the list, not its author. For that it is a secondary source, and RS per noticeboard to boot. It and all related coverage in RS are valid secondary sources to contribute to WP:BASIC, and there's no need to meet ANYBIO if BASIC is met. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added additional citations to her article. There is extensive in-depth coverage of her in newspapers and on major websites like BBC, Forbes, Times of India and Hindustan Times. Easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." She passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" due to her work with people who are deaf. She passes WP:TEACHER because "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" while teaching Indo-Pakistani Sign Language. This impact of her work has been noted worldwide, which is how she ended up on so many lists of notable people. Lonehexagon (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd love to change my opinion but I still see nothing of substance out there. The subject of the article is a teacher of sign language, the owner of a coffee shop, and a TV news presenter. And, no matter how many bits of text about her appear here and there, practically that's all there is to it! Trivial coverage of the subject in sources is not be sufficient to establish notability. Can we seriously claim that she's a notable person just because she does admirable work for speaking-and-hearing-impaired people? -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is in-depth and not trivial; whether or not you think the subject is trivial is irrelevant. Any of the three of the jobs you listed can qualify someone for an article here – see Category:Disability rights activists by country, Category:Coffeehouses and Category:Indian television presenters. Claiming that a subject is not notable "no matter how many bits of text about her appear here and there" is almost exactly the opposite of the actual notability definition of "those [subjects] that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", which is judged by "evidence from reliable and independent sources" (WP:N). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sporadic and often suspect bits and pieces, and similar material, do not for notability make. You offer as retort to my argument about what the subject actually does in life the category of "coffeehouses", but this AfD is about a coffee house owner or sponsor; not a place. As to "TV presenters" and "activists", you misunderstood. I did not say she's not qualified because she's in these fields of activity. I object to her inclusion because, in my view, she's a TV presenter and an activist who's not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does she qualify for WP:TEACHER when she is not an educator in the classroom sense or an academic? The TED talk describes her as an entrepreneur, or CEO and founder. And I'm not sure what you mean by disabilities activist. Do you have RS articles that indicate her occupation as teacher and activist? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't think she qualifies for WP:TEACHER, don't you think she qualifies for WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject? [3][4][5][6] Lonehexagon (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WION article - "Smriti Nagpal, the owner of Atulyakala," (implies entrepreneur, not teacher)

Deccan Chronicle - "says the young social entrepreneur." (social entrepreneur)

Times of India - "started a social enterprise" (social entrepreneur)

Hindustan Times - "She is a sign language interpreter working tirelessly for the emancipation of people with hearing disability." (sign language interpreter)

So if she isn't going in as a WP:TEACHER, don't apply those criteria. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is worth pointing out, that Forbes which is an advertising platform, produces 41, 30 under 30 lists, every year. They are clickbait, and having checked with the Notable References noticeboard, they are non RS for BLP. They are not the high quality refererence that are required of a BLP article.scope_creep (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you provide a link to the noticeboard discussion? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to see this discussion. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. I would really appreciate it. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is Forbes Site Subdomains as a Reference There is 41 of these lists produced every year, they are clickbait, and worth consideration. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although reading it again, it does say she is on the staff of Forbes, which makes it a valid ref. But I still think they are clickbait. When you have 41 of something, it is of zero value. scope_creep (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so the discussion actually just cites a Wikipedia article saying there are 41 lists (which I can't even see in the article, but I'll take it as true anyway); the "clickbait" and "non RS for BLP" are your own words and nothing to do with the noticeboard. Your argument "When you have 41 of something, it is of zero value" is patently absurd (I'm sure there are more than 41 New York Times articles published in a week and all are of value). Using the buzzword "clickbait" is not an argument. Besides, the article has 12 non-Forbes sources. Do you have any policy-based reasons to support your delete opinion? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that per WP:ANYBIO, being listed on Forbes or BBC 100 Women is not a "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one has argued keep on the basis of ANYBIO. The BBC and Forbes pieces are merely two additional pieces toward WP:BASIC's requirement for multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. And Scope_creep has offered us an RS noticeboard opinion that the Forbes 30 under 30 list is RS, and written by staff independent of the subjects. (And of course BBC and Forbes are independent of one another!) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to add that I think she qualifies for WP:GNG due to "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject." [7][8][9][10][11] Lonehexagon (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bilorv I wasn't commenting for a delete, and I think it is a wee bit disingenuous to compare Forbes.com with the New York Times. From the Forbes article, Forbes.com uses a "contributor model" in which a wide network of "contributors" writes and publishes articles directly on the website. Personally I think anybody who work for the public good is deserving of an article, particularly on such a scale. scope_creep (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; your edit summary confused me. I also wasn't intending to compare Forbes with the NYT, just to show by analogy that I disagreed with your argument. Also, Wikipedia does not right great wrongs, so thinking that Nagpal deserves an article is not a valid reason to keep. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current article speaks to notability backed with sourcing from various media outlets over more than one topic. Willie d troudour (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2018 (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.