Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babita Sharma

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 'kept' Materialscientist (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babita Sharma

Babita Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, no third-party coverage, content largely not verifiable. Tagged for more than a year without improvement. Huon (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: about 60% chance to change. 333-blue 00:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - she is clearly a very capable television journalist, whose name and face I recognise from watching the early morning 'graveyard' shift on BBC News 24 (or whatever it's called now). However, like several other existing articles about BBC tv presenters, there's no evidence she's been profiled or received significant attention in reliable (and non-BBC) news sources. The best I can find is a couple of brief mentions [1][2]. TV presenters have a much higher profile than 'normal' journalists but, all the same, lacking major achievements or controversy, she fails WP:GNG at the moment. Sionk (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The BBC is saying she's a notable news presenter every day she's on, and the BBC is a reliable source.GliderMaven (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is her employer so is not independent of the subject. The only source currently is a programme listing on their website, not a news article. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pushing it; she can't be expected to be independent about the BBC, but the BBC can be expected to be reasonably independent of her. Otherwise, on that basis virtually no reporter or news reader is notable, if they've only worked for one station, and yet, they would still regularly be on TV. I think that people would expect her, and other news readers to be included in Wikipedia; so I deny your claim that this invalidates her notability.GliderMaven (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is an independent source on how notable the BBC's presenters are? Sorry, I don't think I agree with that reasoning. And yes, virtually nobody is notable merely for doing their job, even if their job is being on TV. Huon (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But then virtually none of the BBC presenters are notable in that case. And I don't agree with that conclusion, I think they're literally all notable because of their job. I think having a reasonably high profile job is enough to make somebody notable; and these are reasonably high profile jobs.GliderMaven (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Newsday for now as this is seems to be the best known work and I found a few links at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily passes our populist notability guidelines. Thanks to good research by Megalibrarygirl the article now clearly demonstrates this. This turns out to have been an inept nomination. Thincat (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Inept" is a bit strong! The article still is largely sourced to 'stuff on the internet' and, when it was nominated, there was scant evidence of notability. Sionk (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Megalibrarygirl's research provides multiple non-primary or independent sources. I find, even in Mexico, which rarely covers Asian sources, secondary documentation, [3] which confirms that her recognition has not been fleeting, that she has had a long career with a notable organization and is recognized in her field as being involved in current events. Passes GNG. SusunW (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly notable if employed by the BBC as an on-camera personality. Per GliderMaven, the job itself confers notability. Additional sources verify this. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 21 October 2015 (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.