Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha
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 Consensus = Keep. --VS talk 11:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hema Sinha
She may be "popular" but I see no evidence in English (blog sites, video clips) or Tamil (can't read it, but it's blog sites) that this VJ is in any way notable. Travellingcari (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - per this (hindu article). I see notability is also quite established in search. --Avinesh Jose T 11:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment that's about her fashion and wardrobe, it in no way establishes notablity as a VJ. What RS do you see in the search? I see a lot of blogs and forum posts. I'm curious as to what I missed. Travellingcari (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I see around 500 google hits, which we can’t simply ignore. It is true that some re-directs to blogs. --Avinesh Jose T 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- ghits!=notability, I didn't examine every one of the 500 but the vast majority of the ones I saw are blogs, video, forum posts and yahoo groups. Nothing that establishes notability per WP:N and WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Still, I’m ok with that Hindu article. --Avinesh Jose T 05:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - over and over I see people "proving" notability on AFD pages or on Talk pages. There is one and only one way to demonstrate notability and that is verifiable references to reliable sources on the article page. Anyone who wants to keep this or any article should put references on the article page. If any of those 500 Google hits are for reliable sources and are non-trivial coverage, then add them to the article. Our decision about whether to keep or delete the article should be based on what is in the article, not on what is said here. If someone improves the article to be verifiable and notable, I would be happy to keep the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where exactly does it say that our decision on whether to keep or delete an article should be based on what's in the article? WP:N speaks about the notability of the subject, not what's in the article; WP:DP says "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Avineshjose. And second Prosfilaes' comment. If a topic has potential sources to build an article, then we add them to the article, not wikilawyer it to death. Furthermore, there's no requirement in WP:N that someone "establish notability as an X"; notability is presumed from coverage. The idea that someone has to have "fame and importance" in order to have a Wikipedia article was rejected long ago. cab (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- re "establish notability as an X", the article discussed her being a VJ, therefore the sources to establish notability as a vj should cover that, not her fashion. I still have yet to see a single RS coverage of her notability as a VJ. Travellingcari (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, sources do not have to cover people in the context of their profession to make them notable. If she is notable for her sense of dress, or her house, or whatever else, then she is notable period regardless of how she earns her paycheck, and notability is judged by coverage in reliable sources, of which The Hindu is definitely one. cab (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I disagree. The article is about her as a VJ, her dressing well is not encyclopedic in the slightest. By that logic I could claim to be the Queen and give you an article about my being included in a book. That doesn't make me notable or encyclopedic. But we're allowed to disagree and we'll see what happens. I still say she's not notable. Travellingcari (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, sources do not have to cover people in the context of their profession to make them notable. If she is notable for her sense of dress, or her house, or whatever else, then she is notable period regardless of how she earns her paycheck, and notability is judged by coverage in reliable sources, of which The Hindu is definitely one. cab (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, we add them to the article. Saying on this page that sources exist does not make the article any better. Until someone actually adds them to the article, future editors can't verify notability. I just wish that people who assert that there are sources, would actually go ahead and add them to the article. This AFD debate and many others would disappear if people went ahead and added them instead of simply saying that sources exist. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- re "establish notability as an X", the article discussed her being a VJ, therefore the sources to establish notability as a vj should cover that, not her fashion. I still have yet to see a single RS coverage of her notability as a VJ. Travellingcari (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
