Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachana Shah (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Rachana Shah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable (most of the refs are about her husband, or are non-reliable). A previous AfD was withdrawn by its nominator. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * strong delete tried to make it in neutral tone but may not meet wikiGNG . and source never qoute about the notability of the MS Rachana Shah


 * 1) New york times source :  Please have a look at the source it talks about home & Garden, and not about the said author, the whole article focus is on the writer mr Tahir Shah and not on Rachana shah (as she gets named once of being the wife of author) and no work or notablity is mentioned in the article.
 * 2) Los angels review : Talks about the book Timbuctoo and nothing about the designer of the cover (the said ms Rachana Shah), Please also note that not even a single times the name of Ms Rachana shah comes in the article
 * 3) The independent : Again please note that this is a book review and no where in the article there is remote mention of the name Rachana Shah.


 * so much for the above links, we cannot establish the claim that she is the creator or the designer of the cover of the book (which is being claimed) nor can we establish her notablity of her or of her work. is a strong delete criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that withdrew the first AfD after two failed speedy A7s and after having deleted most of the article at the start of that first AfD. That included deleting reliable sources.
 * Also, Rachana Shah did not just design the cover, she was the book designer and the design is a key feature of the limited edition hardcover.
 * Every time a reviewer has positive things to say about the design of the book, then that is a credit to Rashana Shah as the designer of the book, even if her name is not mentioned, just as positive things said about the prose is a credit to the author.
 * The design of the book is described in detail in the LA Review of Books and as opulent in The Independent. "Opulent" is not a trivial word, and it refers to the design by Rachana Shah.
 * Though not at all the best of sources, this is perhaps good enough to establish the simple fact that Rachana Shah was the book designer?
 * The New York Times article is used to verify several simple aspects of Rashana Shah's birth and career in graphic design, and it does this job perfectly adequately. Read the article again.
 * Primary or self-published sources, though not prohibited, have been used with care.
 * And lastly, what do you mean by "neutral tone"? I see nothing about NPOV in the article. If you still mean because the article has an external link (which you deleted at the last AfD, considering it commercial), I think that it is perfectly reasonable for a BLP to have an external link to the official web site. This is common practice and is also an informal courtesy to the subject of BLPs.  Esowteric + Talk  19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The only reason for withdrawl was to support the article and get it into rigth tone of wiki NPOV, which it is currently failing

Shrikanthv (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "Positive things " it would be better to keep a detachment from the subject of the article so that it comes out right.
 * 2) The articles in all the newspaper never have qouted her name, so it could be anyone , may be the author of the book has himself who has done this , until unless proven we cannot consider Ms Rachana Shah as the author or the designer of the article. or also the popularity of the design or her does not gets mentioned anywhere.
 * 3) neutral tone = wiki NPOV
 * Delete & Merge basic info into Tahir Shah. This article fails on so many levels. It is best to let this one go and if awards and solid secondary sources come forward then a separate article could be re-considered. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE, and sources are insufficient for WP:GNG. The NYT article is about her husband, not her; it verifies the statements made but doesn't confer notability. The bio on her own website is clearly not independent. The LA Review of Books doesn't mention her once, nor does The Independent. The RISD list is just that - a mention in a list. Her resume doesn't count towards notability for obvious reasons and Amazon listings for her husband's books are equally unusable. The Timbuctoo website mentions her in passing only, and is not independent to boot. Frankly, the NYT article is the only thing here that even comes close to a useable source, and it's not enough for an article. The mentions she already gets in her husband's article are currently about all that can be said with the presently available sources, so there's nothing additional to merge. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水
 * Note: The article creator has not yet commented here.  Esowteric + Talk  10:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Final note: Thanks, guys. Lack of notability seems about right, given what you've said. Alas, that leaves Book publishing people -> Category:Book designers, nil. Shrikanthv I think perhaps that your grievance here is that you consider the article to breach WP:NOTADVERTISING and are confusing that with NPOV? Thanks all the same. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  08:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Eric. For others, I'm the article creator. Very sad to see this article going, but clearly there's nothing more we can add at this moment to keep it up. Book designers are not usually credited for their work, so this makes things a bit more difficult. Timbuctoo was truly a special book due to the quality of its design, using typefaces dating back to the era in which the book was set, marbled endpapers, etc. Apparently, it's not noteworthy enough at this time. And BTW, I am not Rachana Shah or Tahir Shah.  Blue Lupine  14:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete:The subject has a bit coverage in print media but that is not supporting to have an article on wikipedia, we have to follow the rules not desires. I do realy not see that Shrikanthv's points and concerns are not valid as wiki policies.Justice007 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete:Non notable on her own, merge into husbands article as suggested above. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 06:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems to be a common name, some of whom experienced tragedy: . Information about the above noted Rachana Shah includes Times of India February 7, 2006 and New York Times March 30, 2006. That is not enough source material to meet WP:GNG. Beyond this, seems unlikely there is enough source material out there for the topic to meet GNG.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2012 (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.