Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naghma Sahar


 * 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. The "keep" opinions are given less weight because they claim the existence of sources, but do not cite them; indeed, the article contains no reliable independent sources.  Sandstein  09:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Naghma Sahar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Claims no notability, fails WP:GNG. PROD was revert ing ed by citing reason that she is covered in some book written by her colleague at NDTV! Sounds very much an independent source. (rolling eyes smiley) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep She was one of the (two) main characters in Braking News, a non-fiction book that got very positive reviews when it was published in 2010: outlook, live mint, elevate difference, and that could be used to beef up our article. Unfortunately, I am at present very far from my copy of the book. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The book is written by Sunetra Choudhury, a fellow NDTV pal of hers and that kinda book can be used only to write generic information about her but not considered as independent source to establish any notability; like already said in the AfD rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete For Wikipedia to feature a biography that article must either meet WP:GNG or some specialized notability criteria like the ones listed at WP:BIO. No acceptable sources are cited so this article fails GNG. No assertion is made that this person could pass any specialized criteria. In Biwom's sources, only the live mint source mentions this person by name, and then it only does so in passing while the subject of the article is something else. This person is not the subject of those articles on Braking News.
 * It could be that Braking News is a WP:RS which contributes to this person's notability but evidence is not presented which ties this person to be the subject of that book.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This personality has no independent notability & it fails to satisfy WP:GNG Scourgeofgod (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's a stub that needs a LOT more work, but the individual is a journalist for what appears to be a major India TV network, and if so, GNG is met.  If this is an example, she is doing some significant work, even if it's in Hindi and not in English.  Montanabw (talk)  00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So every employee of a "major India TV network" is by default notable per GNG? (And what a blunder; she works for NDTV; not India TV, both are different.) And what does the article really say? That she went on a "continual hunt for local cuisine"! That's notable?! That's all the book reviewer could write about her? And as said previously, her colleague writing testimonial about her is not independent source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making a false argument, Dharmadhyaksha. I stated, "a major India TV network, which I presume NDTV is.  And clearly, the janitors are not notable, but the on-screen television personalities most likely are.  For example, a person in a comparable position with the BBC or NBC or CNN would almost certainly be notable on that basis alone, and I presume that the major TV networks of India are just as important and notable as the ones in the USA or the UK? Or are these networks unimportant, minor ones?  Or are only the women non-notable??  Just curious.   Montanabw (talk)  22:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you should come back with all know how and then argue keep. You are assuming NDTV is same as India TV, you are assuming on-screen television personalities are notable, you are assuming all major TV networks in India are just as important as that in USA or UK, you don't know what you are arguing is an unimportant minor network or not and you are assuming in bad faith that this AfD is because the subject is women. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am not assuming they are the same network and please stop your hyperventilating and assume good faith, They appear to both be major networks. The NDTV article states "New Delhi Television is among India's top broadcasters and has offices and studios across the country. Its three national news channels NDTV 24x7 (English), NDTV India (Hindi) and NDTV Profit (Business news) form the core of the company."  If this is not true, then perhaps the NDTV article shouldn't be there or that material needs to be removed ... but if it is major, then the people it hires are major - and I would suggest that over 1500 links mean it's pretty significant.  By extension, people who are its major on-screen personalities meet GNG.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  08:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With that logic WP will be full of non-sense if applied to all List of largest employers. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Another false analogy; we are looking at both company size and celebrity status here. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But we are not. You are wrongly implying that because she is seen on screen and is an employee of a large company she is notable. That's wrong! §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 05:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This person hosts and has hosted shows on a major network. Also per Biwom, keep as she is mentioned in notable sources. I feel as if notability would be more apparent if she was working for a western media outlet. Cocoaguy ここがいい 08:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - being the host of a non-notable show doesn't make you notable. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 15:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as simply none of this suggests even a minimally better notable article. NOTE: Please relist a third time if no comments come soon. SwisterTwister   talk  19:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO .Now hosts of all TV shows are not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:51, 1 January 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.