- 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. ✗ plicit 12:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Priyanka Saha
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Priyanka Saha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The bio article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Has few passing mentions in un-reliable sources. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete: as G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion.–– FormalDude talk 09:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)- Hello @ FormalDude
- Hey I did some research and found some more reference to the subject on google. I think that if given some time, more sources and references would come up. May be it would be a good idea to hold the deletion for a few weeks. That is my opinion. Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Changing my !vote to draftify per WP:HEY. –– FormalDude talk 10:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the efforts to improve the article. Though, I should note here that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Various sources like [1] (basic Google search), [2], and [3] are considered generally un-reliable. [4] has passing mentions. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 10:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @ Kavyansh.Singh
- Nice to hear from you. I do understand your concern about the GNG, however, in my research, I found that the subject got an award. And the citation number [4] is the list of people who got the award in 2021 with a short description of what they were awarded. The list was published in The Print, which I guess is a reliable and a notable source. Your citation number [3] is of Republic World pray explain how it is un-reliable. Further more, when I tried to improve the article, the popup suggested that we source from Google, and you are suggesting that Google Knowledge Graph is unreliable, this has gotten me confused. As even now, as I am trying to understand, there is a suggestion under the name Priyanka Saha near the top of this page that is suggesting we find sources from Google. Sincerely I am scratching my head in confusion. Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 10:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @
Wiki3editor1986, sorry for being bit unclear in my previous comment. So, Google is merely a
search engine. It (almost) provides all the sources available on the internet. Google itself is not a source. The top of this article says that you can find sources through Google. Don't use Google or Google knowledge panel as a source. As for The Print citation, yes, it is generally reliable. But, (1) it just has a
passing mention of the topic, that is, it does not provides information about the topic in detail. It is fine to use that source to cite that she received that award. But, it does not help establish the notability. (2) If the India Icon Awards, had itself been notable per Wikipedia standards, it would have helped in assertion of notability. But that award is itself not notable, thus we can't claim that the subject is notable as she won that award. And as for the Republic World/Republic TV source, per
WP:REPUBLICTV, "
[in 2021,] there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. [Republic TV] Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories.
". Thus, it should not be used. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)- Thank You @ Kavyansh.Singh for clarifying. My opinion in the matter was, as my research yielded some sources that were not originally in the article, it might so be that more would come and they might be reliable and verifiable as per the standards. So in place of deleting the page immediately, would it not be better to draftify per WP:HEY as @ FormalDude suggested and let the article provider improve on it, make proper and verifiable citations over time and re-submit for review? Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 12:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll leave that to the community and the closing administrator. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 12:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Kavyansh.Singh
- Fair enough... Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 12:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll leave that to the community and the closing administrator. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 12:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @
Wiki3editor1986, sorry for being bit unclear in my previous comment. So, Google is merely a
search engine. It (almost) provides all the sources available on the internet. Google itself is not a source. The top of this article says that you can find sources through Google. Don't use Google or Google knowledge panel as a source. As for The Print citation, yes, it is generally reliable. But, (1) it just has a
passing mention of the topic, that is, it does not provides information about the topic in detail. It is fine to use that source to cite that she received that award. But, it does not help establish the notability. (2) If the India Icon Awards, had itself been notable per Wikipedia standards, it would have helped in assertion of notability. But that award is itself not notable, thus we can't claim that the subject is notable as she won that award. And as for the Republic World/Republic TV source, per
WP:REPUBLICTV, "
Just a note that Wiki3editor1986 has been globally blocked as a "[s]pam-only account" – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 18:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete: GNG not attained yet.-- E.Im anoff Snatch 20:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)- Striking this vote as the user has been blocked by Blablubbs ( Special:Diff/1067230347) – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 13:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. The author, User:Moinak.shaivya, appears to be conducting a promotional crosswiki campaign including this bio, one for himself and about 14 photos of himself on Commons (now deleted). His account has been globally locked. It seems he or a friend have then created a sockpuppet ( User:Wiki3editor1986) earlier today, to push for this article to be kept. This second account has focussed almost entirely on articles or Wikidata items that were created by User:Moinak.shaivya including a WP article on Wikinews. [ 24Cr][ talk] 14:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Crosswiki spam, as the steward Cromium points out above. Additionally, Saha does not meet WP:BIO; I found nothing about this person (there were reports about other people with the same name, but those are of no relevance here) other than press releases about her and her company pushed in a lot of places in my search for sources. Java Hurricane 12:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: as per nom. and others. - Hatchens ( talk) 15:38, 26 January 2022 (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.