Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mini Menon

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 keep. Seems to me to meet the general notability guidelines; although it could still be said that relatively few of the sources focus specially on her. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Menon[edit]

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

inadequate notability, with the article supported by mere notices of unreliable sources connected with her employer. "Best bysiness news anchor" is not a award that imples notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the reference states the importance of the article and it Fails Wikipedia:GNG. JackTracker (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known journalist. Secondary sources suffice to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that Nom performed WP:BEFORE or that any of the editors above searched for notability, beyond looking at the page. Seek and ye shall find. True, India is a tad retro in re sexism, so some of the coverage of her carer comes in the form of articles like 5 Hottest Female Indian Journalists [1]; also better stuff [2]. search a little, the coverage is there. e.g. this: [3] profile in The Hindu. And remember please, it's not the coverage on the page that counts , it's WP:NEXIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the good sources E.M.Gregory found, and found a few myself, which are now in the article. I did a little cleanup, too. She's covered over time and passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:GNG, which is now reflected in a well sourced article thanks to E.M.Gregory and Megalibrarygirl. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2016 (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.