Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Govindini Murty


 * 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   no consensus. The issue is: are the mentions in the examples "trivial coverage" or not? No consensus on this was reached. I am closing this with no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Govindini Murty

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Doesn't appear to have any notability besides having helped start a minor, fringe right-wing film festival in L.A. that is now inactive, and a single appearance on Ebert & Roeper as a guest reviewer. Laval (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles with significant coverage found in the New York Times, Weekly Standard, Los Angeles Times, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per MelanieN, reliable sources have been found for notability. Derild  49  21  ☼  00:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The NYTimes link is classic trivial link. The Weekly Standard link is....... weak. The LA Times one is actually on point, but even there it's not about her, although I acknowledge that invites the trivial coverage analysis. But it's not enough to search for the name and then point out a few places it was used. The first 2 uses are pretty meager, and even the last isn't on point. I don't think it's enough on point, and I don't think the analysis on the above is particularly compelling either. Shadowjams (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - in this day and age, who hasn't "has appeared on television to share her thoughts"? Trivial coverage. NZ forever (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think the coverage is there, despite the mentions. Shadowjams' analysis is pretty close to the mark, I believe. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Secondary source coverage found to satisfy notability. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (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.