Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harini Iyengar

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harini Iyengar[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Unelected candidates for political office do not meet notability under WP:POLITICIAN. Her legal career is also of limited notability, possibly falling foul of WP:1E. MB190417 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the RS coverage is about her candidacy and can be covered under the appropriate election article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Bondegezou. Geoffroi (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing her a Wikipedia article just because she exists — people do not clear WP:NPOL just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win; people do not clear WP:AUTHOR just because their own writing technically metaverifies its own existence; and on and so forth. Most of the footnotes here are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all — for example, appearing as an interview guest on the news is not a notability claim if your source for that is a video clip of the appearance itself, and people are not notable as lawyers just because they have a staff profile on the self-published websites of their own law firm. And the few sources that actually meet our reliable source requirements aren't enough to get her over WP:GNG either: they're all either routine coverage of the election itself, or glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in articles whose principal subjects are other things or people. So she's not notable as a politician, but this is not demonstrating that she clears the bar for other reasons either. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iyengar didn't invite herself onto Sky News, BBC's Newsnight and ITV News at Ten and she is not the programme maker or the broadcaster so I don't see how they are primary sources. What is metaverifies? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not get over GNG by speaking about herself or other things in interviews: a person gets over GNG by being the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. It's a primary source because she's the one doing the speaking, and is not the subject being spoken about. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is her media / parliamentary legal consultancy work on high profile gender-related cases (Harini Iyengar#Career) that make Iyengar notable rather than the times that she has stood for election for the Women's Equality Party. I'm not quite sure what the WP:1E is a reference to. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC) — My own note to closing admin: I am the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the sources in that entire section constitutes notability-supporting coverage. The Guardian is stray verification that a court case involving a woman named Nicola Thorp existed, which completely fails to mention Harini Iyengar's name at all in conjunction with it; transcripts of government procedings are primary sources, not notability-supporting coverage; people's own self-published contributor profiles on the websites of their own employers are not support for notability; and video clips of her speaking as an interview guest are not support for notability for the reason I specified above. A source has to represent other people writing or speaking about her as a subject, not just technically verify facts or represent her speaking about herself, to constitute support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I alleged the WP:1E in reference to the case of Nicola Thorp, which the article calls "high-profile", and which makes up the bulk of the section of the article that you claimed demonstrates the subject's notability. Having now reviewed the paragraph in question, it seems to transpire that Iyengar had no actual involvement in that case except at the hearing, as Bearcat has highlighted above. The most notable part of her career, therefore, seems to be that she once attended a hearing of government committees and has given a few media interviews. MB190417 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for the Nicola Thorp case (other than The Guardian):

"London receptionist 'sent home for not wearing heels'". BBC News. 11 May 2016.
Sanghani, Radhika (13 May 2016). "Nicola Thorp high heels row: 'It's sexist to insist that women wear make-up to work'". The Telegraph.
Bilefsky, Dan (25 January 2017). "Sent home for not wearing heels, she ignited a British rebellion". The New York Times.
Bilefsky, Dan (6 March 2017). "British woman's revolt against high heels becomes a cause in Parliament". The New York Times.
Bourne, Dianne (11 June 2017). "Coronation Street newcomer Nicola Thorp is a high heels campaigner trying to change the law". Manchester Evening News.
Malle, Chloe (8 November 2018). "Why smart, chic women are abandoning high heels (forever)". The Wall Street Journal.

Iyengar did not just "attend" the joint petition hearing between the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee into High Heels and Workplace Dress Codes which was set up in the wake of Thorp's case, she gave evidence to it as a legal expert. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those articles contains a single mention of the name "Harini Iyengar" at all. It doesn't matter what her role in the case was or wasn't, she still isn't notable for it until she's been the subject of media coverage about her role in it. Coverage that doesn't mention her name even once is not evidence of her notability — if you want to demonstrate the notability of Harini Iyengar, then you have to show sources that are about Harini Iyengar, not sources that are about Nicola Thorpe while completely failing to even mention the existence of Harini Iyengar. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to MB190417's wider point: ... the case of Nicola Thorp, which the article calls "high-profile"... it seemed to me to imply that the Thorp case was not high-profile. It was just a technical note that the case was indeed high-profile and received both national and international coverage. That is why I prefaced it Refs for the Nicola Thorp case rather than further refs that establish the notability of Harini Iyengar. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E over the high heels incident. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Per Bearcat. Clearly fails WP:GNG and any other notability guideline. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2019 (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.