Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitha Prabhakar

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitha Prabhakar

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

Resume. Laun chba ller 08:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is someone's online resume. All information is from the subject herself. Article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria: not widely cited, no large body of work, contains only primary source material from the subject herself, most of which is a listing of places subject has worked. Cited material are either her work or interviews of her. Ehusman (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The only reliable secondary sources are the two book reviews and while a good start it's probably not enough since these sources are lower bar coverage (Kirkus reviews many books). The remaining sources are all dependent in some way, not fully independent secondary, or just trivial. If the book had 2 or so more reviews I would probably change to Keep (and redo the article to reflect notability as a book author). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:Creative. Article does read like a resume, sources are mostly primary, and there doesn't seem to be secondary sources that satisfy notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve I acknowledge this page does resemble a resume of sorts. That said, the subject's body of work is comparable to many TV journalists and personalities whose presence on Wikipedia is well-established. For example, the subject has long appeared regularly on the two biggest business networks in the United States, (CNBC, Bloomberg Television), each of which has many personalities on Wikipedia with relatively similarly circular references. Adriannalopez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by sources about a person, not sources by a person. Appearing on TV is part of the job description to be expected not notable since these are works by the journalist. Also the existence of others articles on Wikipedia that fail notability is not reason for this one to be kept. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:31, 5 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.