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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 10:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment All the references provided above by
Beccaynr do not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
GermanKity (
talk) 15:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment per
WP:HEY, the article has been revised and expanded, and shows how
WP:BASIC notability is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources that offer
WP:SECONDARY context and commentary on Mehta, including her biography, education, and career beyond the
Humans of Bombay website. Per
WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the
WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time has permitted the development of an article that is about more than one event involving this high-profile individual. In addition, the sources support notability per
WP:CREATIVE, including that she is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique with the
Humans of Bombay website, and she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] [that has] been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles, although some of the sources that focus on the website are included in my comment in the
Humans of Bombay AfD discussion.
Beccaynr (
talk) 16:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, easily passes
WP:GNG. The article has several references which independently discusses her life and work in fair depth. Tayi ArajakateTalk 07:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi
User:Tayi Arajakate, Can you please explain on what ground you said it passes GNG. The sources have to be more than reliable in order to justify a keep !vote - which sources do you think show significant coverage?
GermanKity (
talk) 10:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)reply
GermanKity, The Better India and The Hindu articles clearly show significant coverage. Tayi ArajakateTalk 11:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I think the revision of the article helps show how in addition to
The Better India, 2015 and
The Hindu, 2016, significant coverage is also available from
The Hindustan Times, 2016,
Verve, 2018, and
Khaleej Times, 2018, due to the amount of encyclopedic content these independent and reliable sources support in the revised article.
Beccaynr (
talk) 16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Right, I had missed the Hindustan Times article, it is an example of significant coverage as well. I disincluded the other two, because they are interviews. Not that it matters, either way she has more than enough coverage to be considered notable. Also, good work on the article! Tayi ArajakateTalk 21:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you, and I appreciate your point - I had been thinking that I should have clarified my view about how Verve and especially the Khaleej Times, that while interviews, both include
WP:SECONDARY commentary and context from the interviewer that support notability, at minimum per
WP:BASIC. Thanks again,
Beccaynr (
talk) 21:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sources look good. Tone is neutral.
pburka (
talk) 12:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. All the references provided here indicate the subject is the founder of a non notable blog website
Humans_of_Bombay and that is not enough to justify
WP:GNG.
GermanKity (
talk) 08:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Firstly, it's not clear that the blog is nonnotable, although I see that you also nominated its article for deletion. Secondly, the GNG doesn't care why someone or something is notable. It doesn't require any "justification" beyond significant coverage in reliable sources, which is achieved here.
pburka (
talk) 12:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, per Pburka (good sources, neutral tone).
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per Beccaynr.
4meter4 (
talk) 21:36, 23 June 2021 (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.