Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mallika Chopra


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mallika Chopra

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Comparatively behind to be called as notable with other notable authors, missing reliable sources... DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Have added RS now (easily available from Gnews). And has good coverage in media. A good case for WP:BEFORE--Sodabottle (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment if someone is businessman, it might be quantified in $$$s. Also setting up dotcom or blogs is not a big thing - the trafic measure on them would help further''' --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * She has received widespread independent coverage in multiple secondary sources - both in India as USA and both as an Author and as a businesswoman. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment one has to measure it by adding the sources as evidence. She may be notable down the road, she is not there yet.There are out there in the US and in India much superior. Since she lives in the US, US facts may be nore valuable.
 * I have added 15 references now, from both US and Indian Mainstream media. I believe this is coverage enough. Indian Newspaper sources include The Hindu, Indian Express, Live mint and Times of India. American sources include CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe. All this from clicking GNews link above. Please do read WP:BEFORE.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I believe the subject meets the criteria.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I ask others to jump in and vote. The list of references added is growing exponentially while as the body is shrinking. It would be nice if these references are translated into the body of the article for readability and to balance out. Thanks. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The body is shrinking" because of copy edits. The information remains the same. If you believe the article is short that is a content issue and not a case for deletion. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. And AfD is a not a numerical voting process.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Unfortunately these new references fail to address the Comment -1 that I pointed out above. Also these news publications are there simply because there is a string attached to her. The notability goes to the string. I would vote for her if you wait for few more years.

Fyi- I do read Deepak Chopra’s books with respect. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage identifies her as "daughter of deepak chopra" for identification purposes. Other than that there is independent coverage as author and as businesswoman. And some of them don't mention her connection to deepak chopra at all. (check out the negative review for her book in livemint). I have nothing for or against the chopras (as a reader i wont touch deepak chopra's or mallika chopra's books with a barge pole). But i feel the subject is notable enough to be included in wikipedia according to existing guidelines.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I would say you summarize your findings to correlate with the item numbers of wiki notability (You and I may not agree with wiki notable guidelines). I appreciate your efforts. Hope this article survives. Respectfully I thank you. It is now left to the consensus. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources provided show more than enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per significant coverage in reliable sources. TN X Man  21:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a classic problem with using Gnews. None of the sources added have Mailika Chopra as their subject. Being mentioned or quoted in an article that has something else as its subject, does not qualify as significant coverage, even if the person has been a quoted a dozen different times. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does her being quoted/company in context of her book or her company count as coverage for her?. I believe the coverage for the book and the company's launch are covering her as well. Out of the 15 refs, 6 are reviews for her own book in which she is quoted/interviewed, 2 are about the launch of her company in which she is named CEO. So it goes like this - Subject X does Action Y, Action Y gets covered in the media and Subject X along with it as the primary doer of Y.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * fyi- Wikipedia article traffic statistics is another way of measuring popularity especially during afd process...Usually this number shoots up when in demand/in trouble. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Traffic statistics are not a measure of notability. If that is so, a lot of obscure subjects will not be covered at all. If your logic is extended then a lot of scientific and historical articles can be deleted easily. Only articles that will survive are current events and film related ones.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I meant the current Bios - here is an example  Jhumpa_Lahiri --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -Help me understand - cited o times on google scholar the books shown in Bibliography. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Books from bibliography are cited o times in Google scholar - There are many non-fictions by other wiki notables cited many times in Google scholar. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * She is not an academic and her books are not academic works. She writes parenting books for general consumption. You will not find a majority of non fiction works (especially on subjects like self help, parenting, cooking, lifestlye etc) cited in google scholar.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The claim is she an American writer – she must compete in that category. Someone might be a CEO, founder CEO or Director – the value of the sale and $$$ (tangible) that someone will look into. Barnes and Nobel bookstore has a shelves for book on parenting etc.. and likewise those authors and their books are found in wiki as wiki notables. o cites in Google may mean they cease to exist as popular books for reading for anyone. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * what do gscholar cites have to do with "popularity"?. Amazon sales rank maybe but academic citations?. And what is this whole thing with "competing"?. And what is this "claim" about american writer. She is american, she writes books. both are facts. o cites in Google may mean they cease to exist as popular books for reading for anyone (how conveniently you have left off the "scholar" after google here?).--Sodabottle (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Claim you askedI referred to her introduction in the page - "American author and businesswoman". The credit on comics goes to her brother. I ran out of time - I meant scholar google. Thanks. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a claim. those are facts. And regarding virgin comics, Check the 16th ref. it specifically states she is a member of the board of directors of virgin comics. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is another string. She is a director to her brother's comics!!! Hard to find independent accomplishments to call her wiki notable. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a family run business. But she is still a member of the board. By your logic Mukesh Ambani is not notable because now he runs the company his father started (or any second generation business family executive will not be notable). What is this you are going on about "wiki notable"?. WP:BIO is the relevant guideline involved here. (the specific line applicable her being A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.) It is independent coverage that is necessary for notability and she has had lots of it. And i have established with independent refs in multiple secondary sources that the subject has that coverage. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - What is your take on this? Notability is not inherited. They are many out there who have become notable otherwise. Thanks. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki notable means notable as per wiki rules (who trusts wiki articles - there are many who are kind of do not trust). The one who is not notable here might be notable for others e.g. other Encyclopedia. Also Village Patel may be notable for the villagers...--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You and I are trying for the split milk for nothing. No one is coming forward to close it off. If Mallika Chopra had seen this, she would have asked us not to bother – This wouldn’t make any difference to her life.--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * usually closure happens in 7 days. maybe there is a backlog or simply the deadline is by EST and it hasnt expired yet. Anyway this is not for mallika chopra, this is about building an encyclopaedia. A wikipedia entry is not a PR exercise/popularity reward--Sodabottle (talk) 15:34, 11 February 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.