Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeru Yadav


 * 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 Draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Neeru Yadav

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NPOL. The majority of the cited sources do not meet the credibility standards as per Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline (WP:SIRS) Notability guidelines for people (WP:BIO). CGGCA201 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians,  and India. CGGCA201 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references are entirely valid, with the possible exception of LiveMint . The Hindu is a newspaper of record. Broadcast news sources are usually reliable unless they are Fox News or similar propaganda outlets. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Rajasthan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SIRS is for sources covering companies, organizations, products, services, etc. The subject here is a WP:BLP. In any case, if you have concerns with sources, tag the article with BLP sources. Jay  💬 18:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jay sincerely appreciate your assistance (teaching). Made the required modifications to the nomination statement. CGGCA201 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the credibility standards of WP:BIO's sources that you are referring to? Is it what Notability (people) says about the sources? Can you list the sources that are not meeting standards, and which standards are they not meeting? Jay  💬 06:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jay
 * Citation No: 1 (Source date: 06 Feb 2023) - The ABP Live article strongly promotes a campaign for maintaining cleanliness in villages, which is an essential responsibility for any sarpanch holding that position. Considering a general duty as a significant accomplishment is simply a matter of passing it off. However, it also falls under the category of WP:CHURN, as the article primarily focuses on the subject of hockey training for underprivileged girls and the sarpanch's donation of her salary to support the welfare of girls.
 * Citation No: 2 (Source date: 07 Jan 2023) - Firstly, there is disagreement about whether the LIVEMINT article is a reliable source. Additionally, it can be considered repetitive and lacking new information, as the article mainly focuses on hockey training for underprivileged girls and the sarpanch's donation of her salary to support the welfare of girls.
 * Citation No: 3 (Source date: 13 Feb 2023) - This article primarily revolves around her role as a sarpanch, which does not meet the criteria of WP:NPOL as it is not an office held at the state or province level within legislative bodies. Rather, it is a position limited to the village level.
 * Citation No: 4 (Source date: 06 Feb 2023) - For its coverage related to Indian domestic politics, foreign politics, and other topics in which the Government of India may have an established stake, there is consensus that Asian News International is questionable.
 * Citation No: 5 (Source date: 27 Jan 2023) - This is a repetition of the same theme - hockey training for underprivileged girls and the donation of her salary for the welfare of girls. It is WP:CHURN
 * Citation No: 6 (Source date: 04 Dec 2022) - Even though WP:THEHINDU meets the requirements mentioned in WP:RSP, it's important to mention that it wasn't written by one of their staff writers. Moreover, there are concerns about WP:CHURN—salary sharing, to support the welfare of girls.
 * Please note that all the references cited fall within the timeframe of December 2022 to February 2023. This indicates a coordinated endeavor to construct and enhance the reputation of the Sarpanch.
 * I will include a few additional Google news sources that haven't been utilized in the article yet. These sources can be used to further support the aforementioned point, particularly by emphasizing their theme (churnalism) and publication dates.
 * "Hockey Wali Sarpanch Neeru Yadav Contributes Her Two-Year Honorarium For Rural Development at Outlook (Indian magazine), published as sponsored post under "Outlook for Brands". (Source date: 06 Feb 2023).
 * "Hockey Wali Sarpanch, Neeru Yadav, Boosts Women's Participation In Sports at Businessworld, published under "BW Online Bureau". (Source date: 26 Feb 2023).
 * "Giving wings to their dreams: Rajasthan's village trains girls to score on hockey fields" at The New Indian Express. (Source date: 19 March 2023).
 * "Neeru Yadav, The Hockey wali Sarpanch: A Dynamic Leader Igniting Change and Development in Rural Rajasthan" at The Free Press Journal, published as a PR piece (an email is visible for rectification - pr.error.rectification@gmail.com). (Source date: updated 26 May 2023).
 * CGGCA201 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You have listed the sources, but not answered the questions regarding the credibility standards per WP:BIO. Livemint and ANI may be removed as questionable. Not being written by a staff writer is not a requirement. None of the content about salary sharing is part of the article. In fact the article contains very less of the coverage in sources on her other initiatives, including sports. Are you saying that there are no credible sources, not only in the article, but otherwise, that have substantive coverage of the person? Jay  💬 19:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I apologise for going off topic. To begin with, in terms of credibility standards, the sarpanch does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore, if we delve into more details, she also does not meet the criteria set by WP:NPOL, as she has not held a position at the state or provincial level within legislative bodies. Instead, her role is limited to the village level. And, As someone who has nominated this article for deletion, I have come to the conclusion, based on my research, that there are no reliable sources available, either within the article itself or elsewhere (including Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books), that provide substantial information about the individual. CGGCA201 (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * So what you are saying is the subject does not satisfy GNG and NPOL. So now we have some starting point for this AfD, and we have one week to validate this! Jay  💬 07:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have gone through all sources and enhanced the article. I did not go through the non-English sources. I think they have the same coverage of topics as the English ones judging by the same images used in all editions. The coverage is very limited and related to 3 or 4 activities of the subject at the village level, but if an editor can find and add more to the article, then I may change my mind. 2023 is election year in Rajasthan and I would expect increasing coverage, but not wider or neutral coverage, unless the subject is elevated to district or state level. I wouldn't want to keep this as draft per WP:CRYSTAL just in case the subject becomes suddenly notable. The subject is promising but Delete for now as WP:TOOSOON, and may be undeleted in future if the political dynamics change. Jay  💬 07:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 04:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no consensus. Would editors consider draftifying? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify for article incubation, there might be notability here but current sources may not be good enough per above. - Indefensible (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * @Liz As someone who nominated this article for deletion, I am OK with the draftifying. Charlie (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know, Charlie. Your opinion is important. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 15 July 2023 (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.