Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitali Mukherjee (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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mitali Mukherjee
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable journalist. The "sources" in the article consist a profile from her employer, and a verbatim copy of that profile on another website. Previously deleted at AfD. Rejected speedy (db-repost and db-nn). The only new bit of reliable source attention she's gotten since last time is a three-question interview with an Indian finance website, and she herself is not the topic of the interview; rather, they ask her to make some commentary about the stock market. My comment from the previous AfD still applies: "She reads the news and gets talked about on forums for being pretty. That's it." cab (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  cab (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - with regret. She is our equivalent of Erin Burnett. Doesn't get coverage of her own, as she is perceived as a light weight.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete After 2 relists, still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 12 May 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.