Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalini Ganendra


 * 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 No consensus.  Ty  17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Shalini Ganendra

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable art gallery operator. Few relevant Google hits, and almost all are directories, gallery announcements and news releases. Nothing to indicate how she meets notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Definitely not a good speedy candidate.  Subject is responsible for decorating lots of high-profile places and events, she has received coverage for turning her home into a public gallery and for speaking at the local Speaking Club, as well as mention in art circles, which indicates that she isn't a nobody.  Celarnor Talk to me  10:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Existence is not enough. You exist. Maybe. Does that mean you deserve your own Wikipedia article? Not a chance. DarkAudit (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. Everything that exists is article-worthy.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sir, please do not clutter AfD discussions with obvious foolishness. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What foolishness? Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Start writing. I'll check the AfD or deletion log after dinner. DarkAudit (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For me to write the article would be a conflict of interest. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Celarnor. Epbr123 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm kind of surprised to see someone from ICU nominating things of potential notability for deletion... Celarnor Talk to me 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Worse yet, I'm the guy who started the WICU. But I nominate articles for deletion fairly regularly. This subject is simply not notable, and I don't see anything as far as additions to the article that would change that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's written in a poorly-disguised first-person style, in the manner of vanity article. Not in itself grounds for a definite deletion but it most certainly needs sourcing and a rewrite. Mazca (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Parts were copyvio from a website owned by the subject. I've removed the parts that were copyvio, added 7 or 8 references, and I'll start expanding the article when I get back from dinner.  Celarnor Talk to me  22:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It would seem to me notability is well-asserted at this point. Keep looks like the right thing to do. Mazca (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The refs make a big difference. Only one thing really concerns me, and that is the fact that the New Straits Times articles are behind a membership wall, which makes them a little tough to verify. (It may also explain why my Goggle search missed these.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a new policy that all news sources have to be readable via the internet? Does this mean we can't use print sources anymore?  If this is the case, why do we have citation templates which don't include URLs, and why are other articles allowed to use them?  Celarnor Talk to me  09:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, they're easy to verify by anyone with access to a library that has a ProQuest subscription, which is pretty much everyone in the United States. Celarnor Talk to me  09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing here that shows a notable person re: WP:N, WP:BIO, or even WP:COMPANY. Trying to establish notability by the notable events she has participated in would be inherited notability reasoning, just wont fly. The cited newspaper articles are trivial mentions and some are not even about the subject, she is just used as a story source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The references are used to demonstrate that she is a well-respected and known member of art circles, which lends to her notability. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Her notice comes mostly from professional activities she is preforming as a type of art agent. She therefor has the trivial day to day mentions generated by anyone working in that field. "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and therefor wont establish she is an "important figure". If she did allot of this type of work and received a large amount of coverage she may meet the guidelines for WP:COMPANY, but we are way below that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions with photographs of her and short interviews regarding her involvement? <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  14:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:Its her job. We do not normally put up articles about people who do their job unless it pushes them into some other sort of "notice". We need significant articles about her, not about what she is doing. The normal coverage of someone doing their job in trivial coverage of fairly local events does not meet WP:N since it is not "significant coverage". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fountains of Bryn Mawr has put in better words than I much of the concern I have about this subject. The refs (those that I can get access to — see above) seem to be more about events or organizations to which she has a connection, not specifically about her proper. "Inherited notability" is the best way to put it.


 * Delete as NN per FOBM and others. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (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.