Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitali Mukherjee

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, copyvio pushes this over the edge. --Coredesat 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitali Mukherjee

Mitali_Mukherjee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

"Mitali Mukherjee" appears to be a self-promotional article. It violates the norms of wikipedia and deserves to be deleted immediately. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a bit difficult to ascertain whether a subject is notable, when the AfD nominator blanks the page before attaching the AfD tag. [1]. I'll WP:AGF and merely restore the article, though. EliminatorJR Talk 10:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep this is one of those tricky borderline ones; the name returns hits in Google, but some appear to be about someone else; a lot of the refs are forums, blogs, etc - however we've kept Western anchors with less experience than she has so I am wary of WP:CSB. The article does need a tidy up at the very least. EliminatorJR Talk 10:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per JR. For an American I'd vote delete, but in this case I'm not willing to pull the trigger. YechielMan 18:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep per she could be the indian doppleganger of suze orman. i dont wanna be ethnocentric, and there are discussion/media sites about her, giving her notability. cleanup would help. the_undertow talk 02:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - as it's currently a borderline issue. However, the current article is short on references and needs to be brought to Wikipedia standards in order to remain. --Sigma 7 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Verifiable (e.g. official profile here: [2]) but doesn't seem notable due to lack of independent coverage. Tried alternative spellings too (e.g. "Mitali Mukherji" cnbc which gets another 37 GHits [3]), but no reliable sources there. I've "saved" a few South Asia-related articles from deletion processes in the past, but I really don't see anything that could be done to help this one. She reads the news and gets talked about on forums for being pretty. That's it. cab 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - i've always voted delete on ones like this. i mean, everyone will have their 15 mins of fame. and its that much easier if you're a newscaster or a blogger or something. but then having articles for everybody who has had their 15 mins of fame is not what an encyclopedia is for. Sarvagnya 05:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as NN. The small number of GHits contain a large number of references to Mitali Mukherjee (Mitali Mukhopadhyay) the singer. The newscaster isn't notable at all. --Ragib 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Not notable. I am an Indian and there are practically thousands of news readers with new ones popping up everyday. They are hardly notable and don't qualify for an encyclopedia entry, I reckon this was a weak self promotion stunt Correctus 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Poorly written article, subject's notability is questionable Pittising 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While not an expert on Indian pop culture based on the article i doubt this person is notable. Thethinredline 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Pittising Sleep On It 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per eliminator.Bakaman 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Per Ragib and Correctus. GizzaChat © 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on the ground that the article is improved. The person DOES seem notable, there is no point in deleting the article just because there are more notable "Mitali Mukherjee"s, plus there are many pages for less notable anchors from the west.

And, I think additive Ghits of Mitali Mukherjee CNBC 37 and Mitali Mukherji CNBC 577, should be considered. So, Keep. Speedy Delete copyright violation of this page.Mayank Abhishek 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete: all anchors are not notable. Anchors in the West who are less notable than this one can certainly be brought to AfD as well. Anchors who make significant editorial intervention - I'm looking at you, Barkha - can certainly be considered notable; others are not. Hornplease 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Not notable. Not awardee. Spam. Anwar 16:24, 20 April 2007 (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.