Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leema Dhar


 * 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. clear consensus to fix, not delete  DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Leema Dhar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have no opinion on this article, but I am correcting a failed attempt at nominating for deletion made by Sabishaikhauthor, to help Sabishaikhauthor. Sabishaikhauthor's reason for deletion was "The articles and links are poor and not standard. Except The Telegraph's articles other articles are not as per wikipedia standard guidelines." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - No notable sources. Almost all sources are authored by the subject herself. Coderzombie (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - this page underwent some seriously heavy edit warring in the last twelve hours. Honestly I'm surprised neither party was blocked for editing. I've reverted to the last good configuration (i.e. when it was accepted). You should find that the primary/promotional references have been removed., does that change your opinion at all? Primefac (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I was the one that accepted it at AFC, I'll throw in my obligatory keep !vote (as it should be fairly obvious that's how I feel). Primefac (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per AUTHOR, a creative professional's biography may be kept if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Leema has created (authored) her well known book and the same has been the subject of multiple reviews like CNN's iReport featuring Leema Dhar's interview with Book Review Forum, Global Times half pager on Leema, Telegraph's small but significant piece on Leema, Merinews review of Leema's book, this significantly long piece on Leema done by Amar Ujala which is amongst the top five Hindi regional language newspapers in India, this piece on Leema in Jagran, the highest read daily in India. And none of these is authored by Leema. This biography needs to be developed properly with these references rather than be deleted. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:GNG. The vast majority of sources in the article are reliable and most provide reasonably comprehensive coverage of the subject.  I'm not sure I would say that the coverage of the subject is extensive, but I feel there is definitely enough here to meet notability guidelines.  I am of the opinion that the notability guidelines are about ensuring enough content for a useful article can be found in reliable sources.  We have enough content sources from reliable sources here for an article that describes the subject, thus my argument for meeting WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't really understand the nominators rationale ("The articles and links are poor and not standard. Except The Telegraph's articles other articles are not as per wikipedia standard guidelines") adequate, either. Content and sourcing issues actually aren't adequate grounds for deletion unless it must be completely rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, which clearly isn't the case here - it was adequate enough for an experienced editor to deem it suitable for mainspace.  Essentially, not sure WP:BEFORE took place before nomination. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Why not work on the article to correct the pointed reference issues than trying to AfD it in the first place ? Did we go through WP:BEFORE ? I am missing out on that . It will rather be prudent to close this deletion request at this point as the AfD nomination doesn't look valid. Devopam (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough sources for the author's notability as mentioned by Xender Lourdes and all are justified by our senior editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by संकल्पप्रभा (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 May 2016 (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.