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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. WP:BIO basic criteria reads 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. It does not appear that the reliability of The Hindu is in question. However, the coverage in this article is not significant. The subsequently added sources include only trivial coverage. Therefore, the article, in its current state, fails to meet the criteria of WP:BIO in regard to notability. Lara❤Love 22:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hema Sinha

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha (2nd nomination)
Hema Sinha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

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 TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • Delete: the person isn't notable enough yet, but thanks for trying. Dwilso 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
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 TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable enough... yet. --vi5in[talk] 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
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 TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment one source, that talks about her fashion. Nothing about her notability in her role. She does a job, that does not establish notability TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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 TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep, public figure, notability established, including in vernacular press. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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 TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
      • 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 notableTRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. Dusticomplain/compliment 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Relisting note: This AfD was closed by two admins near-simultaneously in an edit conflict, with my closure finding a "keep" consensus and Lar's a "delete" consensus. We have agreed to undo both closures and relist the discussion so that clearer consensus can emerge. Sandstein (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (and we ec again! :) )Note: This AfD was closed, more or less at the same time, as a keep, by Sandstein, and as a delete by myself. We've decided (see our respective talks) that the reasonable thing to do is relist it, seeking further input in a hope of getting clearer consensus. The history of the AfD just prior to this edit should show the edits. We've removed the closure and the closing statement I made. I'm undeleting the article itself for reference as well. (since I deleted it), unless S beats me to it :) ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, you would think that a popular TV host would have lots of blog posts and suchnot, but she only has 152 by the English spelling of her name and 11 by the Tamil script. That is very few, considering that there are a billion people in India. I know we are not supposed to use Google hits, but in this case it should be taken into consideration. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This should be patently clear. The last two sources cited in the article mention the subject once, in connection to some other event. Literally one sentence is devoted to the subject. This isn't what was meant by the multiple sources standard. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I take issue with your evaluation of sources. The second source contains (as you say) one sentence discussing her performance as the "anchor" (I'm guessing this should read hostess or mistress of ceremonies, but not merely a guest) at a promotional party for a Kollywood movie. The second source links the SunTV show of which she is hostess. Each of these sources shows she "has a job" in a high profile industry. We have loads of MTV VJ pages, and most people never heard of any of them either (which isn't my strongest argument, I'll concede, other crap certainly existing). I don't have any investment in this page, but all sources pass the test of independence and at least the first and last, pertinence, IMHO. Given at least two independent reliable sources (her corporate TV show site and The Hindu Online), it's hard to object to the third (discussing her resonance in Tamil entertainment). BusterD (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's to take issue with? Both sources, insofar as they are independent from her work, have only a minimal amount of coverage. The purpose of the WP:N caveat for multiple sources is to allow smaller figures some leeway. People who don't have biographies about them or major work covering them can still be included if they are covered by multiple sources. In my opinion, this does not simply mean a bare mention. And for both of these sources that is what they are. Regardless of their independence (which I don't think is questioned), their depth of coverage is what is being questioned. If there were a hundred sources that mentioned her in passing then we could accept a sacrifice of breadth for depth. In this case you are asking us to forgo one significant source for 3 ephemeral sources. That doesn't cut it. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • strong delete - one whole google news hit, with just a couple of paragraphs about her taste in clothes.[1] So no real WP:RS worth an article. Merkin's mum 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks sufficient reliable sources to show notability. It's possible she is actually notable in India, but even if that's the case, there just isn't enough evidence of it to justify an article. Terraxos (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-After re-listed, it is noted that those who are commenting ‘Delete’ are mainly focusing on lack of RS. Please note that The Hindu news paper No. 1 popular and its own weight in India. It is considered to be one of the matured papers in India. As I echoed earlier, the notability is clearly established by it. Therefore, it doesn’t fail WP:RS. We have a strong reason to keep. There must be local news also that is impossible to find online. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The source you mention covers her in vanishingly slight detail. It is literally three paragraphs describing her taste in clothing and jewelery. The other two sources mention her in one sentence each. That is all that is referenced in the article. Regardless of the independence and reliablity of these sources, their coverage of her is insufficient. And your claim that there must be local news is irrelevant. What there must be is unimportant. What is referenced in the article is important. Protonk (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I can’t agree with you. Why did the source covers describing her taste in clothing and jewelery in India’s leading vernacular news paper? The answer is clear that she is notable. Additionally, Relata refero and Pastor David pointed out in Lar’s talk and San's talk page (a similar discussion on this Afd), a marginal BLPs are not a valid reason on commenting Deletion. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • They are certainly entitled to their opinion. The fact stands. 2 out of three sources barely cover the subject at all. The third covers the subject in a "Retail Plus" advertising section. I'm not a reader of the hindu times but I'll bet money that section doesn't fall under the same editorial control as the masthead. As a matter of fact, the section is listed under "advertisements" from the front page of the hindu. As far as their motivations go, that is ALSO irrelevant. I can just as easily speculate that the mention was at the behest of a paid publicist just as you can speculate that her mention was because the Hindu times feels that she is the most notable TV host in India. Neither of our speculations should determine what goes into wikipedia. And furthermore, if she is so notable, how come there are only three sources out there with her name on them? Protonk (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, your argument is not at accurate. I will prove it (keeping in mind that I am a regular reader of Hindu). See my comments below:
1) Retail Plus" advertising section?... No way, see the copyright status in the page down. The email id given ---@hindu.com is the same id given in the contact page of the main hindu website. Anyone can comment on any articles published by Hindu along with this, means the the mastheads are same who prepares other main articles also.
2) advertisements, paid sources?... Where is the section listed under advertisements from the main page? I dint find it. Retail plus Chennai is not a paid advertisement section by Hindu. It is a supplement section exclusively designed for celebrities, magazines, books etc. Since Hindu has strong online archive collections, it is available.
3) three sources, no other sources?... How do you know that? Listen to Pastor David’s comment for Strongly Keeping the article in this case above (before re-listed it). --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • First, it IS an advertising section. Go to their main page. then tell me what the name of the section of links you click on in the sidebar is (look to the left sidebar, above the google search bar). Second, who owns it is totally immaterial. It is obvious that it is not the same kind of content as the rest of the website offers. Third, even if it WAS on the front page, the depth of coverage is practically non-existent. They mention her, her job, and then talk about her clothes. The other two sources offer practically nothing except a name, so it is THIS source that the article hinges upon. Are you prepared to tell me that an entry in an encyclopedia should be derive from that first source? From the comments about her interest in casual wear? Lastly, and it really is lastly, it doesn't MATTER how many other potential sources exist unless they either show up in the article or on this AfD. If you show me significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, then I'm fully prepared to reverse my vote. but as it stands it is irrelevant that you claim there are many other sources. If they exist, why aren't they referenced in the article? Protonk (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, no, no I could not find it has been re-directed from Advertisement section. Your assumption is wrong. Check this (see the left bar, Metro plus comes under ‘Features’ section). It also shows that what is metro plus stands for. Moreover, it was a kind of interview & reported by CATHERINE JONA GILON - a reporter in The Hindu, if she is not notable, it would have been impossible. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok. Using that link, "retail plus" is under advt on the RIGHT sidebar. Same as it was under advt in the left sidebar in the original link. And unless you and I are reading the.....ahhh, heck, I'll just post it:
She’s got the sweetest voice in town; this young girl has made her mark on the small screen with her innate sense of humour, spontaneity and beguiling talk. Retail Plus says hello to vivacious Hema Sinha of Sun Music. “I am most comfortable in casual wear!” says Hema, “My wardrobe is filled with shirts, t-shirts and skirts.” When it comes to brands that make up her shopping list, Wrangler and Scullers are right there at the top. So, where does Hema head to when it’s time to refurbish her wardrobe? “I love to shop at Pantaloons and the Globus stores,” she reveals. And when it comes to makeup, “It’s MAC!” she adds without a second thought. Think Hema Sinha, you can’t help noticing the junk jewellery she sports. “Yes, am passionate about them,” she says, toying with the long chain on her neck. “And perfumes are my other obsession, of which Adidas Playboy and Hugo Boss are my hot favourites,” signs off this pretty VJ.
  • That's it. 10 sentences. 2 of which are not about her fashion choices. The subtitle for "retail plus" is "the unique shopping experience". This is a shopping magazine giving a fluff interview to a VJ. Nothing more. Your assertion that this interview would have been impossible if she were not notable enough for wikipedia doesn't hold water.

(OUTDENT) to review: there are 4 sentences in your sources supporting the notability of this person with regard to her inclusion in wikipedia:

  1. "She’s got the sweetest voice in town; this young girl has made her mark on the small screen with her innate sense of humour, spontaneity and beguiling talk."
  2. "Retail Plus says hello to vivacious Hema Sinha of Sun Music."
  3. "The only notable absentee was Namitha, the other heroine in the film who the anchor for the evening Hema Sinha (Sun Music) kept on saying was "caught in traffic and was on her way to the function"."
  4. "Anchor: Hema Sinha" (from a program directory on her employer's website)

How does this make her notable enough to merit an entry in an encyclopedia? these are direct quotes, by the way. Protonk (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply. This is the existing WP article: Hema Sinha (Tamil: ஹேமா சின்ஹா) is popular in the Sun Music TV channel of South India. [1] [2] She was previously working for Raj TV but shifted to Sun Music in 2004 (which was then called SCV). Hema has hosted a few shows within the Sun Music channel but is most well known for being a video jockey for the show 'Hello Hello' (everyday except Friday, 0030-0130 MST), which features call-in audience who requests their favourite Kollywood songs.

Hema has also modelled for a variety of commercials, predominantly on the Tamil media. Hema currently does "Sooper - Dooper" , a comedy show in Sun TV.

The above article doesn’t made in OR. The stub article was created (I am not the creator) by the help of Hindu news & other ghits sources. Additionally, when we speak about a VJ/anchor, costumes, fashions and dress code are the main discussed issues. Not any books she received or award bagged. That doesn’t come to the picture. What else you want to know to endorse her notability? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research isn't the problem. the problem is notability. The 4 sentences that relate to her in the three sources quoted don't establish notability per wikipedia's guidelines. I'm not trying to attack you personally, or her, or the creator of that article. What I'm trying to do is get people to see reason. here is the WP:BIO threshold for entertainers:
  1. Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
That is what needs to be shown. Can you at least agree with me that the 4 sentences I quoted above DO NOT meed this standard? If you can't agree with me, please show me how those 4 sentences show that she meets this standard. And I don't want to hear that she has to be notable or else the hindu wouldn't have interviewed her. There is some traction there but really only if it was the hindu doing it, not retail plus. Protonk (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By summarizing my points:
  • 1) She is notable because of The Hindu article published news about her.
  • 2) The Hindu article is not a paid article, its an independent news item per WP:RS which was interviewed her by Hindu's reporter.
  • 3) The Hindu article speaks about her fashion, dress and costumes etc (note that she is an anchor and it makes sense).
  • 4) As an Anchor/VJ, the independent coverage may not be as available as other notable persons rather incidents/show details may be found if depend google ghits.
  • 5) She is one of the prominent anchor in Sun TV network.
  • With all respect to above reasons, I recommend keeping this stub article and expand it further by the help of local references. Thanks. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer my questions. You are also ignoring the fact that the retail source is probably not under the same editorial expectations as the hindu. You are further ignoring the fact that this (and previous) afd has shown there aren't any other sources forthcoming. You have also invented the statement that she is a prominent sun-tv network anchor. This prominence is not established by any quoted source from the article. I'm probably going to quit while I'm ahead here, I guess my only wonder was how this article survived this long. Protonk (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not ignored it. Because the fact is that the retail source is also definitely under the same editorial expectations as the Hindu. It is exclusively designed for celebrities, fashion & metro incidents. Since Hema Sinha is a notable VJ, the news has been covered by Hindu’s retail plus page instead of publishing in the front page of Hindu. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Protonk (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT & WP:RS. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, it isn't sufficient that the retail section of the hindu covers her. YOU say it is sufficient, but WP:N says that significant coverage of the subject is required. We can go back and forth all day about the reliability of retail plus, but in the end it is unimportant. As it stands, that retail plus article is the only source referenced that comes close to significant coverage, if only because Ms. Sinha is mentioned in more than one sentence. The reason Is ay you are refusing to get the point is because you have been shown that coverage isn't significant. you have been shown that there aren't other sources (in english or tamil) that can expland the article. You have been shown that WP:N has not been met but you dodge the issue each time. The first time I made clear that WP:N and WP:BIO were not met, you simply assumed I was arguing that the article be removed because of WP:OR. Then, when I reiterated by claims, you presumed it was an assault on the article because of WP:RS. Neither is true. I have problems with retail plus, the sun tv network guidebook and sify online as reliable sources, but I don't even need to go that far to meet the threshold for deletion. Even if all three sources are as reliable as can be, she still doesn't meet the notablity threshold. Let me say this again, so I can be perfectly clear: Before we can presume the subject to be notable, she must be the subject of significant (that means non-trivial) coverage from reliable sources, preferably multiple sources. Nowhere in my interpretations of wikipedia's guidelines on trivial mentions for people do I see a suggestion that a 10 line comment is sufficient to base an entire biographical article upon. No do I, in the article, see an assertion of the entertainers notability threshold by any reliable source. This AfD is not, and should not be a referendum on the reliability and impact of the hindu. Whether or not that paper is significant and important is unrelated to the discussion at hand. What IS important is whether or not this woman has recieved non-trivial coverage from multiple, independent sources and whether or not that coverage has imputed sufficent notability for her to be included in wikipedia. THAT is what I was trying to say when I pointed out that literally only 4 sentences existed in the sources that were relevant to the article. Even if you include her interest in wrangler jeans and jewelery that is about 8 sentences total that ALL of your sourcing material mentions here. NONE of those 8 sentences assert notability in any form. 1 of those 8 sentences comes from the TV guide for the Sun TV network. 1 of those sentences comes from a film website where Ms. Sinha is mentioned only because she is apologizing for the lateness of some other, more famous figure. The remaining six come from a magazine entitled "Retail Plus:The unique chennai shopping experience". So if you can somehow show me that this is singificant, non-trivial coverage of the subject from reliable sources, please do so. I'll revert my vote and strike out my text. If all you are going to tell me is a variation on your past comments, then I'm not going to change my mind. Protonk (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Article needs major improvement for inclusion. Barely notable on "english" google searches but, AGF she is probably covered better in other languages. Better sources should be found and notability should be established better within the text of the article and not just by relying on thre reference links. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

comment one paper had 2 paragraphs or something of a puff piece about her looks, voice etc. That's hardly in depth coverage or even any breadth of coverage given there's only one article on her in WP:RS. Merkin's mum 10:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The countries one of the leading and reliable news papers (ie The Hindu) published two paragraphs itself speaks about notability. A marginal BLPs are not a valid reason on commenting Deletion. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails notability criteria. Neıl ☎ 13:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. She's mentioned once in a prominent source. People have looked for sources multiple times (since there have been multiple arguments about her notability), so the presumption that more sources are available becomes unlikely. There should be enough sources to create a complete article and only one good source after multiple attempts to find sources is just not enough to presume notability. Vassyana (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Seems barely notable. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as this passed AFD with a keep decision only 2 months ago. It's too soon to renominate. 23skidoo (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not even sure if Hindu.com is a reliable source. The page doesn't look newspaper-like. In any case, the coverage isn't significant, which a prerequisite for WP:BIO notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The Hindu is probably India's most respected newspaper, and the major newspaper of the southern part of that country. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What makes you think that The Hindu is any less of a reliable source that The New York Times or The Times? It's one of the two leading serious English language newspapers in India, and one of the highest circulation English language broadsheets in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • without making any comment on the article, Hindu.com (and its parent newspaper} has always been considered a reliable source here.DGG (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm on terra incognita in regard to Hindu.com, it's just that the page the article links to doesn't look like the page of a respected newspaper. The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal wouldn't have ad links plastered all over their pages. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Who said it is ad-link, its a page (Supplement kind) designed for adding celebrities & film news. A kind of colourful news since she is a notable anchor it makes more sense adding news about her profession, dress, and fahion etc.--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment More generally, since I've seen Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb make repeated comments to the effect that the reliability of The Hindu is the critical debate or that we should assume good faith that new sources will appear, I feel compelled to make a response (in case people, and I don't blame them, don't want to read through the bunch of nested comments above).
First: The tenet of Wikipedia to assume good faith refers to how we should conduct ourselves with regard to other editors. It does not refer to how we should conduct ourselves with regard to articles. AGF means that I don't assume Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb is arguing just to spite me (I don't). It does not mean that I assume that new or heretofore unpublished materials will appear to support the notability of the article in question. It is not an act of bad faith to ask that all relevant sourcing for the article be shown either in the reference section or on the talk page.
Second: This debate is NOT a referendum on the reliable nature of the hindu. If a subject was covered in the exact same detail in the new york times and such coverage was the only source available to assert notability, then I would "vote" to delete such an article. If we concede that the hindu is the most reliable source in the world, that WP:RS should be re-written to include a picture of the masthead on the page, then it still does not make the subject of the article any more notable. Therefore, it is inappropriate to steer discussion of the subject to the unimportant fact of the hindu's notability.
Third (and last, I hope): Having accepted the notability of The Hindu and it's associated website, The hindu.com, it does not follow that editors are required to accept that ALL subsidiaries and daughter publications are equally notable. The New York Times is clearly notable, but it is probably fair to argue that "T" Magazine, the supplimental section on fashion and beauty, probably imputes less notability than the front page. The same argument can be made for the Retail Plus: The complete Chennai Shopping Experience. I'm not arguing that retail plus is totally divorced from The Hindu. I'm arguing that imputed notability has to at least be different. at the VERY least, it is disingenuous to link to and discuss the retail plus article as through it were from the front page of the paper. Just as I would not discuss the "T" Magazine as though it were the NYT front page, it is misleading and inappropriate to do the same for Retail Plus. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-I Tomb is not editing against AGF, rather I am pretty aware of it and our policies. I have already replied you that retail plus is not any paid version. It is a kind of supplement version prepared by same editorial group in order to be included celebrities, models news. Why are you again dragging discussed issues into this AfD. It is unconstructive and personal attacks. Lets focus on constructive discussions. One more thing, except you nobody else commented that retail plus is not from Hindu group. Therefore, please accept the general consensus. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are totally acting in good faith and assuming good faith. I'm not making personal attacks, please don't accuse me of such. Again, I've NEVER said that retail plus is not from the hindu group. I'm sure they own it. It is clear. What I've said, and what others have said multiple times in this thread, is that retail plus does not appear to be the same as the front page with regard to imputed notability. I've also said that this isn't important. Even if the same article was on the front page of the washington post or the New York Times, it would still be trivial coverage. To me, the triviality of the coverage is more damning than the disposition of the one reliable, independent source. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep She meets WP:BIO. Although her meeting it may just barely I've seen no reason why we shouldn't have an article on her (such as a request for deletion by the subject). Thus there's no good reason not to keep. 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)JoshuaZ (talk)
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.