Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karishma Mehta


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Karishma Mehta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertisement of a Non notable person. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Just a founder of a non notable Photography Website Humans of Bombay. GermanKity (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE and the multiple independent and reliable sources about her and her work that can be used to expand the article, e.g. Meet the Human Behind the Popular ‘Humans of Bombay’ Page (The Better India, 2015), From the heart, through a lens (The Hindu, 2016), Meet Karishma Mehta, the woman behind Humans of Bombay (Hindustan Times, 2016), Almost every photo has a common undertone of Mumbai: Karishma Mehta (Hindustan Times, 2016), Karishma Mehta, The Woman Behind Humans Of Bombay Facebook Page Gave A TEDx Talk About Her Failures At IIFT (India.com, 2017), People Are Inspired By The Woman Behind Humans Of Bombay Honestly Speaking About Her Failures (Buzzfeed, 2017), In 2 hours, Facebook post raises Rs 16 lakh for acid attack survivor, (Times of India, 2017), Karishma Mehta On How Humans Of Bombay Captures The Invincible Spirit Of The City (Verve, 2018). Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep, easily passes WP:GNG. The article has several references which independently discusses her life and work in fair depth. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 07:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , The Better India and The Hindu articles clearly show significant coverage. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Arajakate  Talk 21:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete Claims of notability on the basis of Humans_of_Bombay which has been already challenged Articles_for_deletion/Humans_of_Bombay. Overall fails WP:GNG. Just a promotional puff piece. RationalPuff (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources look good. Tone is neutral. pburka (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep, per Pburka (good sources, neutral tone). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2021 (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.