Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shubhada Varadkar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Several arguments to keep refer only to the sources analyzed initially, and not the ones brought forth during the discussion; as such they are quite weak. As such I see this as an evenly divided discussion, and no consensus exists on this person's notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhada Varadkar

[edit]

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

Shubhada Varadkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Previously declined through AfC and moved to draft space after. There are 23 references on the page which I went through. There is only one that I can potentially see as going towards notability. The rest are non-independent, mentions, or unreliable. I did an evaluation on the talk page of all sources and pasting that below for those in the AfD discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Global Indian is a blog with very little traffic and no editorial oversight listed.
2. Nettv4U is a profile piece on a website that allows you to make your own profile.
3. Latestly, one sentence mention of an award that does not appear significant. Cannot vouch for the reliability of the website.
4. Nettv4U, same as #2 above.
5. Sanjeevani Life Beyond Cancer, this is a puff piece on what appears to be a non-profit organization website. Source not reliable.
6. Indian Council for Cultural Relations, I am not sure exactly what this list is but her name is on it with a link to YouTube. Mention and directory listing which is not significant.
7. Newsband, an interview so not independent. The publication states it is an English newspaper in New Bombay but there is no editorial oversight listed whatsoever. It also receives little traffic which makes me think this is a blog masquerading as a newspaper.
8. Ada2030, only mention is in the bio of the author (the subject's niece) as inspiration for writing the piece. No other information included.
9 AsianAge, a simply mention verifying she is the cousin to the subject in the article. Nothing significant.
10 Irish Times, this is a link to tags, not an article. I viewed the articles and found this which is a short piece talking about her cousin, nothing significant about her.
11 The Better India, this is more of a mention, Article is her mom who talks about Shubhada's dancing. Not independent and not significant.
12. DNA India, this one is about her grandmother with a single mention of Shubhada. Not significant coverage.
13. Mid-Day, this one is closer but still falls short of being significant. It talks about her autobiography and could be used as a source to support such, but does not have any weight for notability.
14. Her book which is an autobiography. Can be used as a primary source for certain things, but never to establish notability.
15. Scroll.in, this is the first reference where a case could potentially be made for notability. It is about a documentary based on her autobiography.
16. Sanjeevani Life Beyond Cancer, duplicate of #5 above.
17. Hindustan Times, brief mention of her being part of a festival. Passing mention and not significant.
18. NCPA Mumbai, commercial site, advertisement for a function, not significant.
19. Eoicaracas, another mention of a function. Mention and not significant.
20. The Times of India, this is a good article, but per WP:RSP, there is no real consensus for reliability and it is know for accepting payments for coverage.
21. Maharashtra, duplicate of #3 above.
22. & 23. No link but these are duplicates of #5 above.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is the same parent company so likely a lot of mirror reporting. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should she be merged with Leo Varadkar? She is a Odissi dancer in her own right and a notable personality.https://www.thebetterindia.com/41535/shubhada-varadkar-odissi-dancer/ Kiran Java (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://scroll.in/reel/893106/in-documentary-peacock-plume-the-stirring-story-of-how-shubhada-varadkar-danced-around-cancerKiran Java (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should NOT be deleted I do not agree that this page should be deleted because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about all knowledge and this biography adds to the body of knowledge. This article adheres to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy

I propose that other editors can contribute to strengthening the article. This article should not be deleted as it is a biography of a living person and none of the citations are libelous and hence they do not go against the Wikipedia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran Java (talk • contribs) 04:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly take you up on your proposal but unfortunately there are no references I could find that help show how she meets WP:ANYBIO. No amount of editing or reference adding would make her notable. It all comes down to the sources which simply do not exist. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this dated 2019
https://www.dnaindia.com/just-before-monday/report-flamencodissi-2715298 Kiran Java (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and a off line source
  1. "Pune Festival 95". The Times of India, Pune Plus. 7 September 1995.
Kiran Java (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiran Java: [1] was already brought up in CNMall41's comment above. I don't know about "Pune Festival 95". The Times of India, Pune Plus. 7 September 1995, I tried to find it in The Times of India archive, but I couldn't find it, do you have any link to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question, how many sources are a requirement? Kiran Java (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no set number of sources, because the notability guidelines for people can vary by profession and accomplishments - for example, this source: In documentary ‘Peacock Plume’, the stirring story of how Shubhada Varadkar danced around cancer (Scroll.in) is very good - this is an in-depth review of a documentary about her, described as "a tribute to Varadkar’s resilience through her personal battles, including a failed marriage and cancer." Not only did someone make a documentary about her, but an independent and reliable source is providing secondary support for its noteworthiness. This source suggests further sources supporting notability based on her life and career (at minimum according to the WP:BASIC guideline) are available. Beccaynr (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been discussion of this source previously and seems that it should be rarely used and only for certain things. I would highly doubt we get consensus to use it for notability purposes. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - in addition to the 2018 Scroll.in review of the documentary about her, there is also a 2014 in-depth profile of her in the Mumbai Mirror: Dancing against disease, as well as reviews of her performances in The Hindu in 2017 and 2019, The Mumbai Mirror in 2017, and DNA India in 2013. The Better India also profiles her in 2016. There are also brief mentions of her that seem to be nontrivial support of her notability, e.g. the Hindustan Times reporting in 2020 "WFAC festival showcases 9 female artists, each being an icon in their own right including [...] Shubhada Varadkar (Odissi)". This article can be further developed with available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    via the Wikipedia Library, there are also reviews of her performances in "Delightful evening of classical ragas at Tribal museum" The Pioneer, 2019 ProQuest 2230122223 and "Classical dance forms come alive on stage" in the Hindustan Times, 2015 ProQuest 1655451986, as well as a briefer review of a work she choreographed in "The essence of Odissi" The Hindu, 2018 ProQuest 2019716953.
    There is also a report on some of her collaborative work: "Flamencodissi: In a rare collaboration, the vigour and energy of Flamenco will meet the lyricality and grace of Odissi. Yogesh Pawar watched artistes from both styles rehearse together to explore their interface" DNA ProQuest 2174802486, and a 2021 report in The Free Press Journal about "noted Odissi dance guru and exponent Shubhada Varadkar who is presenting her film – a 30-minute docu-feature themed on 'Dance in times of corona,' along with German flamenco exponent Catarina Mora as a part of the Prayaag Dance Festival 2021." ("Prayaag 2021 to find out if classical dance works without a live audience" ProQuest 2500343002). There is also a report mentioning awards, including the "prestigious" Mahari Award 2011 of Orissa, that she "has been teaching, performing and conducting workshops in India and abroad for more than a decade" and that her mother "Manik Varadkar is a social activist" ("Doordarshan Sahyadri Prerna Puraskar 2014", indiantelevision.com, 2014 ProQuest 1520552910. Beccaynr (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note about Scroll.in above but we cannot use it to establish notability due to its reliability. Mentions, profiles, interviews, and breif announcements cannot be used either (at least for notability). The only reference that I see as possibly being used to establish notability would be the 2019 article in The Hindu. Assuming we all agree with that reference, that still leaves us way short of having significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 RSN discussion linked above about Scroll.in between 4 editors does not appear to suggest a film review cannot be used or that the source cannot be relied upon for basic facts, such as the film being based on her autobiography. A 2020 RSN discussion about Scroll.in also has further opinions, including detailed and nuanced support for its reliability.
And these profiles of Varadkar offer significant coverage of her life and career, so they provide support for WP:GNG notability; the reviews of her performances are additional WP:SECONDARY support of her notability, per WP:BASIC. And while passing mentions would be trivial coverage, it seems nontrivial when she is described as e.g. "being an icon." From my view, the level of sustained and in-depth coverage supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your contention but disagree with your reading of the RSN discussion. There seems to be consensus to avoid it with a few saying it can be used for limited circumstance. Regarding SUSTAINED, she received most of her coverage during the same few years and there is nothing of note as of late. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep clearly passing wp:gng and actress notability. Shaikha Habiba (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaikha Habiba:, being this is only your 4th edit to Wikipedia, can you provide a more comprehensive statement about how she "clearly" passes actress notability. Keep in mind that deletion discussions are not a WP:VOTE.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: OP seems to apply same measurement in every case. Indian news media may be earning from movie industry, but I would doubt the same thing is true about classical dancers. Indian classical dancers may be getting some fame some money that too with difficulty to pay for their annual expanses. It would be surprising if Indian classical dancers would earn enough to pay Indian news media outlet. Again what money they would take from a cancer patient?
This seems like stretched stereotype applied to wrong segment. Seems like a borderline case of WP:CSB. Bookku (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Little more analysis in support of above comment: In 2014 Varadkar's age would be around 53 according to the date given in the article. Usually It's not time of career take off to pay for a news, much less likely when one is facing cancer. What I can see is inadvertently Appeal to probability taking shape. Bookku (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Detail WP policy analysis
  • WP:BASIC

    ..If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;.. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below.

  • Policy seems clear article meets WP:BASIC is enough; WP:ANYBIO is an additional criteria and inconsequential in this case since article seems to meet WP:BASIC. Policy clearly mentions multiple independent sources can very well combined to demonstrate notability.
  • Coverage may have ups and downs but media coverage Minimum ten years from 2011 to 2021 is not sustained then what it is?
  • There is an article about her Guru Kelucharan Mohapatra who seems notable. And that what matters in Indian classical dance. And she has been awarded with a state level award that matters for the form of her classical dance.
  • Beccaynr seems to have provided good number of refs from Proquest. This Hindu Newspaper article even OP does not have any issue with this publication. This DNA 2013 news report mentions even editors name and is substantial coverage by all means. As earlier explained Scroll and Times of India are other wise add to substantial and would have been ok to OP. RSN strictures on both these news groups are mainly due to their coverage of Indian politics and high paying Indian movie industry; otherwise those are news papers of record. As explained in detail in the comment above these RSN stricture criteria can't be applied to classical dance, she is beyond age of career take of for publicity dependence, and a cancer patient unlikely source of payment for any publication or media house. What I can see is inadvertently fallacy of Appeal to probability and WP:CSB taking shape. Need to get out of usual stereotype at least in this case.
  • IMHO In this case if OP could have used Template:Notability and discussed at the article talk page first as part of WP:AFDBEFORE, it would have been better.
Just to be clear, you are saying that I did perform WP:BEFORE? As far as discussion, how much do you feel is needed? Based on User talk:Kiran Java you will see that both Onel5969 and Jamiebuba (pinging both to provide you with additional background) moved this back to draft prior to it being declined. User then moved it to the main space for a third time after I declined it in draft space. I then did a full review of references as shown above and performed a WP:BEFORE for any additional references (finding none that I feel could be used for notability). CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I just saw article talk page and missed on user talk page. User:Kiran Java certainly should have avoided haste and do more efforts to understand Wikipedia policies. I have had a feeling that whether we (community) could have had more discussion at the article talk page to revisit applicability of TOI and Scroll as an exception for Indian classical dances, since those are looking like border line cases.
I have already specified that outlook of disagreeing users on points of content is inadvertent, so pl. be assured no direct or indirect personal aspersions are implied. Bookku (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It should be noted that not only should the nominators analysis of sources be analyzed, but sources subsequently brought forth should also be analyzed. Coverage over a few years would generally be considered SUSTAINED.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:54, 29 May 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shubhada_Varadkar&oldid=1158858356"