Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heenal Raichura (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No evidence of enduring notability to pass BLP1E has been applied so the policy based votes are the delete ones Spartaz Humbug! 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Heenal Raichura
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This person is not notable, and the claim to notability "former youngest ever doctor in the UK" doesn't cut it either; at most this is notability in passing. Since the first AFD another "youngest UK doctor" entry was deleted at AFD, see Articles for deletion/Rachael Faye Hill; the reasoning there applies equally here, if not more so, since Rachael Faye Hill was (supposedly) the youngest doctor at the time of the AFD, not just a former youngest doctor. The Heenal Raichura entry also includes a list of awards won, but I see no sign any of the awards are noteworthy. Hairhorn (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 'REPLY:.... notability in passing ......And for the same reason would you consider this article for deletion - Nathuram Vinayak Godse (19 May 1910 – 15 November 1949) was the assassin of Mohandas Gandhi - because it was one off "in passing"  event?'--82.5.126.69 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete under WP:BLP1E. Subject meets critera of WP:GNG as current sources show biographical information on Raichura is covered extensively by The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, NDTV, and Britain Today magazine. However, she still largely seems to be a case of someone notable for a single event.  Some of the awards won point to deadlinks, and the NRI one doesn't seem to be for Raichura at all (the title says it is for someone named Malkit). I, Jethrobot drop me a line 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I stand by what I said last time. It's not whether we being the youngest doctor ever should be considered notable, it's whether independent reliable third-party sources found it notable enough to write about it. I disagree that we should be dogmatically disregarding the coverage because of WP:BIO1E - she is not an event, and she remained the youngest doctor for two years after the initial coverage died down. In any case, there has been subsequent coverage and awards since she became the youngest doctor on an international scale, so I think it's sustained and widespread enough to qualify for event coverage. One alternative might be to merge all these youngest doctors into, say, Youngest doctor in the UK (I think the information in this article is mergeable), but I disagree that this should face outright deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although coverage is normally required for notability, it isn't sufficient for notability. Lots of people get mentioned in news articles without getting encyclopedia entries. Hairhorn (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * However, that's a principle normally applied to people who are mentioned in news articles about an event they were involved in (the event of which may or may not qualify as notable itself). In this case, the coverage was specifically about her, and whilst the bulk of the coverage was after her graduation, it was national (and even international) in coverage, and she went on to get awards for this long after the initial coverage died down. In my view, this is enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:BLP1E. really not much else he is famous for. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per LibStar. No indication she is notable for anything other than a brief spate of publicity when she graduated from med school. --MelanieN (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The comment - The Heenal Raichura entry also includes a list of awards won, but I see no sign any of the awards are noteworthy. Hairhorn (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC) - speak volumes as those advocating deleting this article do not consider awards given by organisations outside western world of any importance.Do the western countries hold monopoly of importance of awards given? Would Dr. Heenal Raichura's importance diminish if there is no entry in the Wikipedia? I suggest to those advocating deleting this article also ask Google to delete thousands of other articles on this subject. And out of thousands of those who read this article online, why only few of those who have nothing better to do in life hell bent to have this article deleted? Why can't they be constructive?


 * "the reasoning there applies equally here, if not more so, since Rachael Faye Hill was (supposedly) the youngest doctor at the time of the AFD,......Hairhorn (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)- Or is this sour grapes for those who feel so strong about Rachael Faye Hill's article having been deleted?--82.5.126.69 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — 82.5.126.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't actually see an argument for keeping in here, just attacks against other editors. Or are you suggesting the awards are notable? Hairhorn (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite the tone of the comment, I believe the user is arguing that the awards are notable, and are not being recognized by other editors. As far as I know we don't really have a policy for assessing the notability of awards in fields where the awards themselves are generally less well-known (unlike filmmaking or music for instance), and medicine / being a doctor is one of them.  This is problematic as it turns into one person trying to educate other editors on the importance of an award they may have never heard of at all and as such, there is an undue burden put on the article creators. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 17:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It is also, equally problematic that the current awards are still not sourced. I have no been able to verify any of them and apparently one of them (The "Glory of India Award") is not based on published content but rather on "information found on Wikipedia"  One source is a PDF written in Sanskrit which I cannot read.  Someone else will need to verify this. I, Jethrobot</b> drop me a line 17:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Whether or not the accomplishment of Raichura is legitimate enough to have an article is irrelevant. What is relevant, is the fact that the article is now outdated since she is no longer holds the record for the youngest doctor. Also, Raichura seems to only be famous for a single event, as her other awards aren't very noteworthy since they aren't sourced. --Asanti6 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't grounds to delete an article. If a person is notable for holding a record, he/she remains notable when the record passes on to someone else, and the Wiki article is updated accordingly. The only grounds for deletion is querying whether the record holder was notable in the first place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Those advocating deletion of this article seem to be missing a lot in the sense that they assume that they are the only ones who read these articles and have the whole and sole right of determining the existence of any article in Wikipedia.


 * Thousands of others who access this information online are not reliant only on Wikipedia. A Google search of Heenal Raichura shows more than 9,000 results. So would a deletion of the article from Wikipedia diminish her importance or her notability?


 * Notability is a phrase which can be twisted the way a person wants to twist. There are thousands of sports personalities and others whose names I believe none of the editors advocating deletion would have heard. Does this mean that their entries in Wikipedia should be deleted?


 * And who are we to determine the notability of a person? There are thousands of film actors and actresses in nations like India where they have millions of fans (more than population of UK) but none of the editors here would have even ever heard their names.


 * There are thousands of awards given to notable people in every country. Does this mean that those persons are not notable because they do not fit within the criteria of our “western culture” or is Wikipedia only for Anglo-Americans? If so, then these editors should propose to change its title to ANGLO-AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA.

--82.5.126.69 (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those editors advocating have given any solid reasons except to give their own personal opinions. And how many of them are there, compared to thousands who read this article? Should these thousands be deprived of such information on the whims of such editors?
 * Struck your vote, since you have already voted once. Hairhorn (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 *  Didn't know that the fate of this article was determined on voting basis.--82.5.126.69 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't, as the tag at the top clearly states; but you still only get one vote. Hairhorn (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So what was the point of striking off vote (atleast in your mind) which was never going to be counted in any case?--82.5.126.69 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not going to be the judge, jury and the executioner.--82.5.126.69 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia does have a bias towards English-speaking countries mainly because editors more readily know how to find reliable sources from US and UK papers. That's not to say that coverage from non-UK/US sources are worthless - only that sources from elsewhere are more easily overlooked. If you can find coverage of Raichura in the Indian media (preferably after the date when she first got media attention by graduating), that might be enough to sway the outcome. I'd like to help, but with me being in the UK I wouldn't know where to look. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris for your concern. As regards to finding reliable sources,they are already there online. At the top of this discussion page,click on - Find sources - and you will find a number of articles in well known newspapers and magazines such as India Today,Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Sun, Telegraph,Times of India, Hindustan Times, Gujarat Samachar, Pratiyogita Darpan, etc.all published in English. The article was also published in the magazine of British High Commission in India, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office magazine,University College Hospital inhouse magazine where Dr. Heenal Raichura started her first job,and thousands of newspapers, magazines,was on radio and tv in every corner of the world. For the record, there are more newspapers and magazines published in English in India than anywhere elese in the world.Bearing in mind that I have already mentioned that there are thousands of websites on the internet to confirm this, it would be futile for me to convince those narrow minded who want to enforce their "western culture" and treat Wikipedia as being their own media to censor such articles.


 * Should this article be deleted, then it would definitly show the true colour of those editors and administrators.--82.5.126.69 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is coverage, but as far as I can tell pretty much all of it is "youngest doctor" stories from when she graduated. As I mentioned in the nomination, it's not clear that any of that establishes notability, especially when Rachael Faye Hill had similar coverage from similarly reputable outlets. Hairhorn (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (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.