Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niharika Acharya

Source: 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Acharya

Niharika Acharya (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)

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, the notability test for a journalist is not passed just by offering technical verification that she exists, and requires external validation of her significance (noteworthy journalism awards, significant coverage and analysis about her and her work, etc.) in sources other than her own employer -- but this literally just states that she exists, and sources her existence to one 31-word blurb announcing her hiring for a job and a transcript of a piece of her own journalism. But we're looking for sources where she's the subject, not the creator, of the content, so the transcript isn't support for notability at all, and the blurb would be fine for use if she had more WP:GNG-worthy sourcing alongside it, but isn't substantive enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only valid source in play. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 15 November 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.