Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samhita Mukhopadhyay


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Samhita Mukhopadhyay

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

One more of these non-notable bloggers that have only been mentioned by other non-notable bloggers. Damiens .rf 16:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete I looked at half of the refs and none of them support notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Samhita Mukhopadhyay is a prominent blogger. Feministing is a well-known and popular blog among young feminists. If you will look at my sources, she is profiled - directly and in-depth, about her and her views and not entirely her work at Feministing - by two different independent and reliable sources. AlterNet is an online publication with a solid editorial-review process. Nirali focuses on South Indians in the news in America. It also has an editorial board and staff, suggesting that its articles are reliable and fact-checked. Multiple independent sources confirm her notability, and she is widely cited as an authority by her feminist blogging peers, as required in WP:BIO. This article was properly cited and sourced, with articulated references that explained that the sources cited were independent and reliable. RMJ (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested in looking at sources that show Mukhopadhyay's notability, please consider the following (linked in the article):
 * Interviewed by AlterNet, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
 * Interviewed by WireTap, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
 * Interviewed by India Currents magazine, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
 * Interviewed by Nirali magazine, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
 * Interviewed by Houston Chronicle, a reliable, independent source with editorial oversight
 * Publication in major periodicals, including The Nation and The American Prospect
 * Work making Feministing a major source for feminist writing on the Internet
 * I think all of the above clearly show that she is clearly notable under several criteria listed by WP:BIO :
 * She is widely cited as an authority by her peers. (as evidenced by numerous interviews and presentations at major conventions).
 * She is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (young feminist activism on the web is a new paradigm)
 * She has created played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Feministing is a major source with a great deal of traffic that has been subject to multiple reviews by other writers.)
 * Again, I think that the case for her is pretty clear. Thanks. RMJ (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology: I recently engaged in meat puppeteering in this debate. I sincerely apologize for this serious oversight in judgment. I've attempted to rectify this error by striking my comments above and taking steps to retract my requests for help. I felt it was my responsibility to note my wrongful actions on the debate. Thank you. RMJ (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Smerge I can't see a single indepdendent, reliable, biographical source about her. The India Currents interview seems best and the Nirali interview tolerable, but I can't see the earmarks of either being a reliable source.  (Where is the ombudsman?  Where are the corrections to prior errors?  I can't find these.)  What I do see is sources about Feministing.com.  Both of the aforementioned items are primarily about feminesting in the first place.  The identical Alternet and Wiretap piece are clearly about the blogsite, not about this blogger.  (How much "independent editorial oversight" is there if they post the exact same thing by a single author anyway?  The evidence leans toward zero.)  Plus she blogs/writes for Wiretap, so it is not an independent source.  The Austin Chronicle article is not about her, and the only coverage of her it gives us is "an editor for Feministing.com and a Web manager at the Oakland, Calif.-based Center for Media Justice. Her writing focuses on transnational feminisms, race, media justice and policy, pop culture, and music" - that is clearly not substantial coverage.  Per WP:BIO1E, while her notability still stems from one activity, it is better to cover the activity than the person.  So smerge to Feministing.  When and if substantial biographical coverage of her emerges, then we can reconsider.  But what is available today does not meet the test.  GRBerry 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I was asked to take a look at this afd. Since I was asked to come here I won't state an opinion.  But I will comment that I don't dismiss a reference that calls itself a "blog", or whose critics call it a "blog", just because it has been called a blog.  First, a lot of things that are called blogs are not really blogs at all.  Some newspapers pay their columnists to write online columns, and call them "blogs".  Some online sites have editorial oversight, just like a printed publication.  Since it is the editorial oversight that made printed publications more valuable than some kook rambling away in his or her basement, the online sites with editorial oversight shouldn't be dismissed as just a blog.  When a person who has independent notability publishes some of their thoughts online, in a serious manner, those writings should generally be regarded as WP:RS.  Some online publications generally resemble the blogs that are not regarded as reliable or remarkable -- except that they are regarded as reliable or remarkable.  Ana Marie Cox, the original Wonkette would be one example.  She went from publishing a blog that became widely quoted to a job in the MSM.  Similarly, the talking dog blog is widely quoted because of the caliber of the guests he interviews, and the overall reasonableness of his well-researched comments.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Ironic how this online encyclopedia which is in essence, the bible of all blogs, has now begun to question the validity of a web persona that is defined by blogging. What is a substantial biographical reference? Should we check for passport id's and take our shoes off before we edit or post. This thread appears to belittle the subject and neglect the fact that the future surveyors should be the ones who decide what is valid or too common. Like every other good thing turned commercial, this site is just one more example of how the ability to garnish attention and notoriety allows the mission statement and principal to lose sight and disregard those that helped build its structural formality. I feel no compassion toward the content related to these articles so I can easily say I am not biased. If anything I think feminism weakens many prudent arguments for equality.

So delete a blogger because a user thinks their content is mundane or they haven't been published on a fortune 500 magazine site... not long thereafter we will see advertisements lining these pages and people will move to the next wiki type blog site. Don't for a moment think that the fame of the internet site is concrete or people are forgiving when you begin to punish the day laboring brick layers that built the building by not allowing them access into your now special gymnasium.

We are also supposed to be a news source correct? Are we judging what and who should be newsworthy now? If we are, I think it is evident what the future of wiki is. — Pdconway (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Too much drama. Even Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's own standard. We don't want to be part of the self-validating cicle some bloggers created around themselves. --Damiens .rf 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, she's a prominent blogger. Wikipedia is not in a position to pass judgement. Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — Hilary T In Shoes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — Hilary T In Shoes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Perhaps not, but we're certainly in a position to assess whether articles meet our policies, and if not, delete them. - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have power over your own tiny world, but it doesn't stop you being hypocrits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary T In Shoes (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do review WP:CIV (and English spelling). Anyway, there's nothing "hypocritical" about striving to apply WP:BIO across all articles. - Biruitorul Talk 22:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She is a valuable voice in the feminist community and an influential blogger/writer among young, internet-savvy feminists. If one is a notable person in a specific community, is it necessary to have been profiled outside of that community? I think not.Alb0305 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — Alb0305 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It is necessary to have been the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing to meet WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage by independent, non-blog publications. - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 14 March 2009 (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.