Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurmehar Kaur


 * 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. Essentially, opinion is divided as to whether Kaur meets WP:BLP1E or not. The article has been improved with additional sources such as the Indian Express, which makes the earliest "Delete" votes problematic to judge. The most recent votes add little to the existing ground covered, so I think closing as "no consensus" (which defaults to keep) is the best option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Gurmehar Kaur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With due respect to Kaur, but i nominate this bio for deletion because I believe she is notable only for a single event and no other claims of notability thus falling under WP:BLP1E. --Saqib (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just looked her up on wikipedia to get context for this story: - which I believe is a solid criterion to make someone notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:4D00:DC:9D10:ED2C:187B:20F4 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. She was in notable newspapers earlier as well. Check this --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 02:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply Are we going to create a biography of the fan who won a date with tennis star "Eugenie Bouchard"? Now this fan has also got international coverage. Similarly, this lady got coverage based on a twitter war about an YouTube video. Marvellous  Spider-Man  06:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Must Delete - This article violets policy WP:BLP1E related to article creation for biography notable only for single event. She is just a media sensation for now a days and she is not linked with any notable event that should be featured for article creation. The whole event might be created under the section of "2017 controversies in India" or "2017 Protest in India" as it was in 2016 JNU sedition controversy. सुमित सिंह (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is so, then you should merge Kanhaiya Kumar also into 2016 JNU sedition controversy -- Yohannvt (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pointing - Even Kanhaiya Kumar should be considered with the same cited above. Like in case of Gurmehar Kaur, we can not declare some one notable just because of her some posts on social media. The event is not significant nor the individual's role. She is not having any reputed designation or running any organization. She just relate with one event only. Her information should be merged in the specific event. Wikipedia is not news so any news notable biography should not be here. सुमित सिंह (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pointing Language of article is also not written in neutral point of view and comes under WP:ASSERT. How it can say that Virender Sehwag and others made fun on her. This article just following social media status and posts favoring specific person or community and not having real facts. सुमित सिंह (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:6033CloudyRainbowTrail has fixed some issues in the article regarding neutrality. Online activism is also an important task nowadays.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep She has become really notable in the last couple of days & it cant be called a one-off incident or a single event. Check this link -- Yohannvt (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Must keep Gurmehar Kaur has become really notable. see:in the news--Obaid Raza (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject of the article has been significantly covered independently and personally by various reputed independent journalism houses. Article seems to look good minus the primary you tube links provided which i have removed in my contribution. There also no doubt should remain regarding merger as events and incidents do not take place into being until people related to it make it happen thus stand a crystal clear notability to have an article in main space. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Thank you. Pragmocialist (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 09:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. A clear case of WP:BLP1E and WP:REFFLOOD does not confer notability. GSS (talk |c|em ) 09:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is not a case of WP:BLP1E. The subject was in the headlines earlier as well. Online social activism is also a thing nowadays. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, let us try to accommodate all notable biographies.Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 10:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why the subject was in news earlier? and also please feel free to link those sources here. GSS (talk |c|em ) 10:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Notable sources like the Indian express have written about her in 2016 as well, check this. While now she is in the headlines for another campaign which is against ABVP. Although her previous activism is also being appreciated. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 10:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The source you provided above is what she is back in news these days, being a part of a campaign does not make one notable independently and she grabbed the attention because of her viral video and being trolled by some notable people. As per the recent news, she is not a part of the campaign anymore so I see it as a non-notable individual and believe this article should be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk |c|em ) 12:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually no, check this link. Now, she is in the news for her stand against the conflict at Ramjas College in Delhi. So, there are at least two different campaigns and a lot of coverage. One campaign was anti-war and this one concerns DU protests. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not almost but one and all coverage of this individual is related to a viral video. Per WP:BLP1E: "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", "that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual", "the event is not significant", "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." If Kaur starts getting press coverage unrelated to that Indo-Pak peace message video there's grounds for a full biography, but as it stands the article is just restating the news coverage and I don't see if the current event is notable itself that I can suggest a redirect. GSS (talk |c|em ) 09:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Check new news articles like this about her which prove that she is not notable for just the Indo-Pak video. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me clear it here that Wikipedia's guidelines and or policies doesn't specify that the notability of a person can be determined merely on press coverage. I think having the concept of notability for a person on press coverage is dangerous. This may gives the control to news agencies so that they may establish notability of a person merely on the basis of writing pieces about that person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not News therefore merely being covered by news agencies does not simply establish notability, it establishes coverage, at least in my opinion. --Saqib (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What i defened above is the fact that the person is not notable for just one event. The press converage was used to verify that. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 00:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete single events dont pass WP:BLP1E. Though she may have participated in other anti war campaigns, those seem to have remained confined to her facebook wall and dont have any coverage in reliable media. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indian express is a reliable source in India; check this article about her which was published in 2016. Now she is in the news for another campaign that concerns DU conflicts. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I would like today two points to Wikipedia; 1. Wikipedia is not a cheap news OR a medium of publicity stunt; Wikipedia is a dignity. 2. She is not a notable person, she is even not a knowing face and she is far away from activism. Ashwinikrk (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That only is your opinion. This is indeed activism for me. BBC writing about her does not qualify as cheap news, at least for me. Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 17:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete — per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 10:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:BLP1E. Check this news. This clearly proves that she is not just notable for the Indo-Pak video but also for her stand against ABVP. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As far as I know, she recently came to limelight after she publicly spoke out against ABVP - and this led to her video resurfacing once again. It has led to controversy, but we don't know much about her other than that. King Cobra (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well her coverage in the news has already made her an activist. She is quite notable as far as i think. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 16:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, because though I treat people like this with some scepticism (i.e. notable for doing things on social media) she has undoubtedly received significant coverage since last year, not just in the last few days. I'm wondering whether some of the vehement 'delete' votes above are based on disliking her politics? Sionk (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any political motivated deletion vote here. Being a Pakistani, I very much support this girl and her cause and of course would like to see a Wikipedia entry on her, but being an impartial Wikipedian, I nominated her bio for deletion because at the same time it's important to conform with Wikipedia policies. As long as she falls under WP:BLP1E, I don't think Wikipedia need a bio on her. --Saqib (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Sionk (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the current news about her, it becomes clear that she does not fall under WP:BLP1E. She has become notable for at least two incidents. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 02:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * and others: have a look at this news in The Hindu. This does not even mention about her previous video but talks about the current issue, the Save DU campaign started by her.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 08:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I leave it on the closing admin to decide whether to keep or delete this bio. Have we decide to go with keeping it, please don't forget to add the references you provided in this VfD to avoid the bio getting flagged again. --Saqib (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. I was reading the Indian Express and an article today is especially devoted to challenging her ideas, so I needed to come here to look her up. The article needs a lot of improvement but it's clear that there are sources in the mainstream media. Alternatively, merge with a redirect, but where? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly Lady Shri Ram College for Women. -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  18:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete--Wikipedia is not a news-site.And a case of WP:BLP1E---putting out a viral video;trolled by some notable people and persons of prominence choosing sides-- hardly makes one notable.In the last year or so, India has seen a rise in student and intellectual activism.And with the accompanying hot-headedness of the political leaders and the very controversial nature of the topic under discussion--- these frequently snowballs into the national headlines--albeit temporally.But a fortnight or so after, these people magically vanish from any WP:RS coverage.And yeah, I don't buy, she was notable prior to the video surfaced out.As to some of the opposes, I fail to see any policy-based argument countering the issues raised specifically by the nom and . Winged Blades Godric 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have defended so many times that this article is not WP:BLP1E and the person is notable for more than one event. Defending "But a fortnight or so after", here are certain news reporting from 2016; one from July 2016, a popular website in May 2016, another news from May 2016 and then there has been coverage in tons of newspapers in February and March 2017.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 00:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually with some other article heading it may be a subject for q:wikiquote sister project ?, cause all it is about quips, Just I read a quip "This comment is not written by me, its written by my key board" :)
 * Mahitgar (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Policy vs Hasten - Article has improved in compare of it was in early stage. But still bypassing many Wikipedia Policy as WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ASSERT, WP:RS. Wikipedia is not for making someone notable. If she is really becoming notable and doing acts, we should wait for some time. As I know she separate herself from the movement and clearly speak that she has nothing to do with all this now. For now we should keep wikipedia policies in mind. Rest of for the closing administrator. सुमित सिंह (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep While I am generally sympathetic to the BLP1E argument, this has been refuted by the presence of substantive sources from before the "single event" in question. Furthermore, there is such a thing as carrying an argument too far; and I am seeing approximately 2 MILLION news results for her name: even if you discount a large fraction of these as coming from other folks with the same name (I don't know how common a name this is), this leaves a huge volume of coverage. Furthermore, there are going to be at least as many news items in vernacular sources that we are missing here. So, keep. Vanamonde (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a good case of WP:BIO1E. A review of the sources shows that the coverage is related to one event. Note that whether a person is known for one event is generally determined by whether significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.. In this case, it is abundantly clear that the significant coverage is focused on the event. (The coverage prior to this news spike is minimal. In addition, some of prior coverage is thebetterindia.com and newscrunch.in which are not reliable sources for the purpose of notability). Our WP:BIO1E requirements exist precisely so that we don't create WP:PSEUDO biographies on people. This unfortunately is one of the cases. I also agree with the explanation by User:Winged Blades of Godric, so it's a delete for me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Even if you check current coverage only, it focuses on two different events. But Indian Express], a reliable source has also written about her in 2016. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 06:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a look and it seems there was at max 1 or 2 articles, both of which were human interested stories about the video. Every other coverage seems to be related to the current controversy. What we are trying to determine is does significant coverage exist only in the case of one event. In this case, yes. The 2 articles previously are not significant coverage. I looked through quite a lot of sources and all of this is related to a controversy about political clashes in University of Delhi. I would support an article about 2017 University of Delhi controversy and the content should ideally go there. However, I cannot support a BLP here as it is the event which is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article is much more developed than it was over the time. Yes, it does needs improvements. If you go through several media reports and consider them as a reliable source she does comes under WP:BLP. Thank You.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY - I see plenty of sources added showing ongoing coverage for controversies. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage goes beyond one event. Hmlarson (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete--WP:BLP1E violation.WP:RS esp. media units cover numerous incidents in detailed manner.Hardly, all make way to WP!!Already the coverage in print media is spiking down.The main problem is nothing exists about her in media except about the video about a tender issue and the subsequent trolling which as a matter of fact is a common incident in today's India.202.142.107.74 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. This article was created for political propaganda of Indian politics. Delete according to WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  05:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

* Keep - I have already added my comment earlier in the thread, but the article has really improved over the past few days.. So it should be definitely not deleted. Yohannvt (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have struck the above comment as the user has already commented Keep above. Now double keep comment after a few comments is not allowed. -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment still stands, only the bolded part is invalid - don't be a jerk. I have fixed the striking. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  21:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - In the worse case it's WP:BLP1E and in the best case it's WP:TOOSOON. Heavy coverage, but all related to just one event. Coderzombie (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Another possible vantage point we should consider that some of deletion votes submitted in the earlier listing may or may not be due to the dislike of the political stand took by the subject and vice-versa. Thus endangering the NPOV, as pointed by User:Sionk at 20:49 on 4 March 2017 (UTC). Again, subject of the article has been significantly covered independently and personally by various reputed independent journalism houses. Article seems to look good minus the primary you tube links provided which i have removed in my contribution. There also no doubt should remain regarding merger as events and incidents do not take place into being until people related to it make it happen thus stand a crystal clear notability to have an article in main space. Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Also, articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Thank you. Pragmocialist (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed 'Keep' to 'Comment' because you have already 'voted' earlier. Sionk (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vanamonde's rationale.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I have utmost respect for her, but she is surely not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayaksingh101 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. I haven't looked at the sources, and have no opinion on her political position. But, the article itself makes it clear that she is only known for one event. Being known for one event only passes WP:GNG if the event itself is exceptional. This one is not. Narky Blert (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2017 (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.