Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashmi Singh

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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Singh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think it's time someone did this. After some barbed comments on my talk page and even a Wikiquette assistance request concerning this page, I think it's time the Community discussed this article's notability. Currently, I am doubtful of it's notability. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to me to meet WP:CRIME as a criminal, WP:ENT as a newsreader -- although I suspect there may be non-English sources which I have been unable to access. There are also WP:BLP1E concerns if the subject is otherwise a low profile individual, and I do think that is the case here as "a spokesperson for an employer"; it's hard to see her as an investigative journalist when the whole point of the article is that she's terrible at it. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like this did get a bit of coverage, so I'm thinking it would be better to merge and redirect this to the article for Live India. It looks like most of this is covered on the LI article already, so most of it would be fine-tuning. Singh looks like she's really most notable in relation to this particular event with the TV channel, so it would probably be a reasonable redirect.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree with this as a redirect as per Tokyogirl79. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will also support the redirect. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This type of fake sting operations are rare, particularly in India, and as such, one of earlier such attempts has encyclopedic value. Further, with this fake operation, one lady school teacher lost her credibility/job, again an encyclopedic information. There are seveal "reliable" sources. The article has scope for further development, which is being done. In this view we may keep the article.-Rayabhari (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Do you think you could paste some of your sources that you found here~~? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your improvements to the article. The question is that is it enough to rescue it? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Strong Merge: This is a rare incident leading to riots and even a one month ban on a satellite television by the Government. But the incident alone is not enough to create a Biographical page for the subject. A Weak Keep or Strong Merge with Live India. - Bharathiya (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an incident happened that is rare is not enough alone to establish notability. One must find significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. ~~Again, do you think you could paste some sources that you may have found?~~ Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable , not a wiki material either Shrikanthv (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Live India. The controversy is notable, but ultimately the incident is primarily about something that happened at Live India and would be best covered at that article. Singh is one of the key people in the sting, but ultimately this is about something that the channel did and she's pretty much one of multiple players in the event. Outside of this incident she doesn't appear to have any notability enough to where she'd warrant an article to herself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rare incident, plus good reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which sources? LibStar (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin the generic vote Above is a spree of 7 keep !votes in 10 minutes by this editor. LibStar (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have been ongoing attempts (likely WP:COI) to create articles promoting this author and her books.

The user:Love's Journey account is blocked for WP:SPAM. There are also various anon-IPv4's in the 117.224.* and 117.225.* range which are hitting the same or related pages. The WP:AFC submissions have been rejected repeatedly by various reviewers as self-promotional, which usually brings nice little talk-page notes like "Talk:Articles for creation/Singh Rashmi - Well, I am in no way connected to the author. Only I belong to her state. I thought she deserves page being a prolific writer so i created this." - 117.225.89.236 (an IP which isn't in the edit history of the declined AFC submission "Singh Rashmi" but in this same block). Most of these notes are being dumped on user talk pages of WP:AFC reviewers who have refused to move pages of apparent self-promotion for the books in question into mainspace; the AFC helpdesk is also receiving these. Normally, WP:AFC tries to avoid escalating simple WP:COI issues to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, the username policy board and the like if the only disruption is entirely outside main article space; presumbably a WP:COI draft in WP:AFC that gets rejected in AFC hasn't harmed the rest of the encyclopaedia in any way, so it gets declined and life goes on. If this is spilling into mainspace (such as by inserting promotion into this page or others), that's different. "Wikiquette" was tried, without success. If the "Singh Rashmi" self-promotion spills into mainspace, I would strongly advise handling this as a WP:COI and taking it to COI/N. K7L (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename per WP:BLP1E. The one event is notable, this person otherwise is not. K7L (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure how a rename would work out, as it's not really doing anything to the article besides changing it's title. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, "rename" could work like this : "Fake sting operation:Rashmi Singh" or "Fake sting operation by TV channel" or "Fake sting operation causing riots" etc. (This incident may be notable and has encyclopedic value because, it caused huge scale riots and violence in Delhi.)-Rayabhari (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, Live India prostitution sting hoax only makes sense if the main Live India article were not already almost entirely about this one incident. As Rashmi Singh and Live India are effectively two articles on the same topic at this point, they should simply be merged to Live India. K7L (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.