Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umayal Eswaran

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. This discussion seems to be leaning toward the conclusion that the subject isn't quite notable by our standards (counting the "redirect" vote among that consensus, as per that user's rationale). This does not rule out recreation as a redirect. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umayal Eswaran[edit]

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

Although the article has several (mostly primary) sources and links, it does not clearly say why Umayal Eswaran is notable. Most independent coverage is related to her controversial Husband Vijay Eswaran, but notability is not inherited. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note her activities are based in Malaysia and her activities are widely covered in the news media of major Malaysian languages Malay, Chinese and Tamil.Kailasher (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage. Maybe she does good work with the two foundations, has some quotes in that capacity (Forbes[1]) but nothing of significant coverage about Umayal Eswaran. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note her activities are based in Malaysia and her activities are widely covered in the news media of major Malaysian languages Malay, Chinese and Tamil.Kailasher (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the Head of Taarana a school for disabled which a described as a Pioneering School in Forbes ,a dancer and head of 2 Foundation will help her pass WP:GNG marginally. There is coverage in the regional Malay, Chinese and Tamil language media which is not here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the spelling of her name in those languages so we can verify if there are reliable sources in Malay, Chinese and Tamil language media that cover this topic in depth? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable with her charity works and classical dancing in Malaysia. The nominator has already in Editor War with another editor at Vijay Eswaran, the subject's husband page over "Awards and accolades" and I have explained my point and reinstated the facts.Hillcountries (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide multiple reliable sources about Umayal Eswaran with significant coverage. Just being someone who dances and does charity work is not notable. Notability is defined by WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war you say? Care to clarify that accusation? What do my edits there have to do with this article? Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to support a BLP. What little notability there is appears to be by association only, which isn't enough for our purposes. If better local sources exist, then post 'em, we can't just assume good sources are out there somewhere, especially for a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she is little notable only because of her association, show me the rationale what makes the under mentioned articles of Apple executives notable. Some of them are survived for years. And some of them even don't have any reliable sources at all or very poorly sourced. These are only the tip of the iceberg how there are borderline notable articles survived for years until other wise there is a strong need for them to be deleted either by COI or Witch-Hunt. Those articles are Sina Tamaddon, Craig Federighi, Ellen Hancock, John P. Moon and Phil Schiller.Hillcountries (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAP. Yes, bad articles are out there, and perhaps some of them should also be deleted. This is a place to talk about this article, instead. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have nominated for deletion within FIVE hours after Umayal Eswaran was created, but now nearly TWENTY hours passed after you have come across the articles of Apple executives and you have given your thought by stating WP:OTHERCRAP. Can you elaborate your reasons why you haven't nominated any one of those articles for deletion? Hillcountries (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I'm pretty fast on the draw? I'll take that as a compliment, thank you. I think you must be confused about how Wikipedia works. If you think those articles should be nominated, please do so, but this page is about Umayal Eswaran. Being hired by a spouse to run a PR outfit is not notable in my estimation. Helping to run a 40-person school, while noble, is also not especially notable. I am moderately confident in my knowledge of Qnet, and I am also moderately knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies on biographies. I am not especially knowledgeable about Apple's corporate hierarchy. If you honestly want to talk about those other articles, do so there, not here. Rather than attacking me, if you really want to improve the article, you might want to add reliable sources to it. Those sources can be in English or any other languages you may know. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't introduce WP:OR on Wikipedia by stating, "Being hired by a spouse to run a PR outfit.....". The Star, New Straight Times and Forbes are wider reach in circulation to establish notability. Since other regional languages of Malaysia especially the Tamil and Malay are significantly limited on internet usage. So we need print media coverage to support. But it will take time. In that case rather than deletion, {{Notability} } tagging will serve the purpose. That will encourage the editors in Malaysia to scan those paper clippings and send to the Wikimedia Commons over the time.Hillcountries (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you may be confused about how Wikipedia works. Newspaper clippings should NOT be scanned and sent to Commons. If you try to do that they will be deleted as a copyright violation. Use them as sources. You might find this article useful: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Again, don't scan newspaper articles and send them to commons. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. But I am not living in Malaysia to do the needful.Hillcountries (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vijay Eswaran as a possible search term, as I couldn't find enough significant coverage that is mainly about her, and notability isn't inherited. While she does appear to head a particular school, we normally only keep heads of particularly significant schools. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:39, 26 November 2013 (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.