Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supriya Shrinate

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. What S Marshall said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Supriya Shrinate

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Supriya Shrinate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable politician who contested the Lok Sabha election from UP but faced defeat. The sources are almost exclusively routine announcements of her appointment as a spokesperson to INC. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Spokespersons are not defacto notable. Doesn't qualify WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

*Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for politicians WP:POLITICIAN. (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Tnawang (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Vinodtiwari2608 (talk · contribs).

• Keep with a short political career, she might not be a notable politician yet, but she is a notable journalist. She has worked for 18 years as a journalist in the print and electronic media. Being a media person she has been covered in 2014. In 2001, she began her career with India Today as a Special Correspondent. In 2004, she joined NDTV as an Assistant Editor. In 2008, she joined ET Now as Chief Editor - News. She was named Policy Editor and Executive Editor for ET Now the same year. These are major news Channels in India and she was holding Chief Editor / Executive editor post which is a very senior post. Because of her being a notable journalist, there has been significant coverage of the subject. In 2019, she resigned from her post as a Senior Anchor in ET Now to contest 2019 Indian general election. She was covered again when she became the spokesperson. She has been in news several times in recent years. The article had been lacking info on her Journalism career, I have added it now, so the article should now be kept per WP:HEYMANN.Venkat TL (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Keep: Willing to defer to Venkat TL's justification here. However, these sources and justification for her notability as a journalist need to be clearly articulated and added to the article -- can you do that? Currently the article narrative does read as not very notable. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking stronger consensus about the provided sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Just adding more food for thought on this discussion: If we have to evaluate her notability as journalist, we need to check if her work as a journalist was discussed by other media houses. Simply holding editor positions won't grant defacto notability. I was tempted to say that her entry into politics could be WP:1E specifically because she didn't win. But then there is also coverage on her becoming spokesperson. Some may see the two as single event (first part leading to other) and might still consider WP:1E. So truly this is a very tricky situation. We surely need more informed inputs on this discussion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Nomadicghumakkad as I understand, editors of notable newspapers are considered notable. She has held the Executive editor of a major news channel of India post for more than a decade. Easily qualifies due to her high post. There are so many Wikipedia articles of news anchors in India and abroad. Venkat TL (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL, or WP:JOURNALIST, because there does not appear to be much WP:SECONDARY coverage of her career. The article is WP:REFBOMBED with announcements of her appointment as AICC spokesperson in 2019: 1, 2 ANI, 3 PTI, 4 ANI, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 PTI, which are all brief, some with basic biographical information about her career, education and family. Per fn 3 in WP:GNG, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works, so at best, this is one source with limited support for notability due to the lack of depth and secondary context or commentary. There is also the March 2019 annoucement of her political candidacy: 1, 2, 3, 4 ANI, 5, 6, that also does not offer in-depth coverage. There are several sources that report on her work as a spokesperson: The Wire, March 2021, gave an interview about the party's position; The Print, May 2021, went viral on social media after a debate; India TV, July 2021, represents party's position on rising petrol prices; PTC News, September 2021, criticised a politician; Jansatta, October 2021, told a news anchor to not interrupt her during a debate. Reports of her doing her job as a spokesperson in debates, interviews, or quotes to the media also lack secondary context or commentary about her. Her past and current career can be verified, but there does not appear to be much more than a brief CV and some family political history, so it seems WP:TOOSOON for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps, it is because of such WP:Systemic biased comparisons [Internet Bias, culture bias etc, (some countries still dont put everything on internet)] we in Wikipedia end up in a ridiculously awkward situation where Category:CNN people (an American channel) has 555 Biographies while India, a country with 5 times the population of USA, has its prime channel Category:India Today people with only 5 Biographies and one is being deleted on this AfD. Every anchor, editor of US TV channels can have article on Wikipedia, but an Indian Executive Editor + news anchor with 18 years in Media cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think systemic bias is relevant because as a tertiary source, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability and we do not lead, we follow. I think this means that our core policies and guidelines, including the usual reliance on reliable secondary sources, will replicate a systemic bias that excludes marginalized topics from the significant coverage needed to support a standalone article. The Organizations and Companies SNG directly accounts for systemic bias in the multiple sources section, but I have not seen this elsewhere, although fn 2 in WP:GNG states, In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. However, I do not think a source of this quality is available here. In the People SNG, the WP:BASIC criteria states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, and from my view, I have !voted to delete because the sources, even when combined, do not appear to provide sufficient detail and depth about Shrinate for a comprehensive article. Also, the politicians/political figures and journalists criteria seem designed to exclude routine news reporting as support for notability, and a related challenge is the many sources that appear to be promotional announcements instead of independent reports. But I want to emphasize the WP:TOOSOON part of my !vote, because better sources may exist in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Did you read my keep vote above? Please do. Why do you keep harping about the political notability when it is not even in dispute. Blindly applying certain standards on all diverse cultures has led to this ridiculously lopsided (500x) coverage of topics in Third world countries vs US/UK. And you are aggravating the problem. Venkat TL (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  I discuss WP:NPOL because most sources focus on her political work, and I think this work may support an article in the future. I also think a systemic lack of significant coverage can contribute to an appearance of systemic bias on Wikipedia, but as applied to this article, it does not seem to justify ignoring the core principles of the notability guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am certain, her political notability will increase in the coming years to pass the threshold for article, but that should not be an excuse to ignore the journalistic notability.

  Beccaynr, @George Ho it is not in dispute that certain cultures put every trivial thing on the internet and then those stuff are added on wikipedia citing GNG. The problem begins when folks import same standards to other cultures and start deleting articles on people who would otherwise be considered notable and have an article, but since they are in third world countries, with a difference in the amount of internet coverage, they cannot have an article. The subject if she would have been in US or UK tv channels for 18 years, there would have been no way this article could be deleted, simply because there would be tons of coverage. Now I am not saying our notability criteria are useless, just saying that they need not be blindly applied everywhere as an excuse to reduce the coverage of third world countries. Venkat TL (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - No comment on the Indian journalist's notability and the sources. However, I see that the guideline has been cited to keep or delete. If a guideline like WP:N or WP:NBIO doesn't work, why not use policy WP:V#Notability instead? If the sources used are reliable and independent, or if such sources still exist, then she's sufficiently notable. Right? I really hope this article survives the perceived "systemic bias", but... I just don't know. To me, the article looks like a resume in prose. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I do think it might be valuable to consider how journalists from other countries are evaluated for notability, just to see if we're actually engaging in systemic bias. Taking the example of CNN, consider bios like Becky Anderson - sources consist of one interview with the subject, an archived profile from a University website, and one article mentioning a video uploaded by the subject that attracted controversy. Applying the standard suggested by Beccaynr this certainly fails notability, yet examples abound from the same list of similar thinly sourced bios that are not up for deletion. Either we apply the same standard, that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" or we admit clearly that different rules of notability are being applied to American and Indian journalists. See, e.g. Paula Hancocks (only source is CNN bio); Asieh Namdar (one news article, one official bio, two random archived links); Shanon Cook (three sources: a bio, a BabyBumps magazine article, and a spotify playlist). I agree that being the editor of a major news channel for over 10 years is in itself notable, but perhaps it might be valuable to demonstrate that notability by indicating what ET now did during her tenure - notable stories covered either by Shrinate or the channel under her management, any editorial controversies that she intervened etc. If the purpose is to demonstrate her credentials in journalism, then that is certainly one reasonable option. -- Naushervan (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Plenty of articles exist that probably should not, and it may only be a matter of time before articles without sufficient support for notability are listed for deletion. If there is independent and reliable coverage about Shrinate per WP:JOURNALIST, WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG, I would change my !vote, and I have suggested ways to interpret the guidelines that I think could help address concerns about systemic bias. Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Beccaynr, either you did not understand my point, or you are acting naive, since you already voted once. Do you really believe these Indian journalists are not notable or fit for wikipedia? You continue to claim that you will compare coverage of Journalists, of 2 very diverse cultures, and both culture need to pass the higher bar. And if the third world culture doesn't pass? Yikes, too bad, but dont blame Beccaynr, blame the third world culture for not putting everything on the internet. That's exactly how you reach a situation with 555 CNN bios and _5_ 4 India Today Bios. Venkat TL (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Venkat TL, that is not what I am saying, and I would appreciate it if you would not direct these types of personalized comments towards me in a discussion that is otherwise focused on the content, the guidelines and the policies. I have agreed with you about the existence of systemic bias, how I believe systemic bias is reflected in Wikipedia due to the core policies and guidelines, and I have suggested specific ways to apply the guidelines to help mitigate the impact of systemic bias, because this tends to be the focus of my work at AfD and editing generally. And for whatever it may be worth, I have previously tried to raise systemic bias at AfD, without success. Beccaynr (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• The only available close here is "no consensus", and it's been relisted three times already. Just need a sysop to do the paperwork.—S Marshall T/C 01:13, 9 December 2021 (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.