Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humans of Bombay

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 keep. Significant, independent coverage shown to exist. "No it's not" is not a strong argument against detailed evidence otherwise. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humans of Bombay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Advertisement of a photography website founded by a non notable person Karishma Mehta. do not satisfy WP:ORGIND. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A Google search shows an opinion article and something from Forbes about it, both of which are in the references here, I think. The rest is just news articles that uses content from them, and they all just look to be routine coverage that only just mentions that they shared the image or video first, and they're all not actually newsworthy per se to begin with; looks like cutting-edge wholesome "news" "stories" reached India too. It seems to be a social media page, but that's it. AdoTang (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All are the junk sources. 1друг (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to significant coverage in independent and reliable sources about the website, its development, and its popularity, per WP:WEBCRIT, that can be used to expand the article, e.g. Being the humans of Bombay (The Indian Express, 2014), Meet the Human Behind the Popular ‘Humans of Bombay’ Page (The Better India, 2015), Her Parents Tried To Marry Her Off At 15, And She Said No. This Is Her Story. (MTV, 2015), From the heart, through a lens (The Hindu, 2016), Meet Karishma Mehta, the woman behind Humans of Bombay (Hindustan Times, 2016), Almost every photo has a common undertone of Mumbai: Karishma Mehta (Hindustan Times, 2016), Karishma Mehta, The Woman Behind Humans Of Bombay Facebook Page Gave A TEDx Talk About Her Failures At IIFT (India.com, 2017), How Humans of Bombay is helping a sex worker's daughter study at New York University (FirstPost, 2017), Karishma Mehta On How Humans Of Bombay Captures The Invincible Spirit Of The City (Verve, 2018), When the Humans of Bombay came to Chennai (The Hindu, 2018), Sidharth Shukla gets featured on Humans of Bombay, talks about his mother: ‘My mom was our rock’ (Hindustan Times, 2020), 82-yr-old gatekeeper of haunted Rajasthan village connects with his first love after 50 years. Viral story (India Today, 2021), This Bride Ditched The Lehenga & Wore a Pantsuit to Her Wedding, Humans of Bombay Shares Her Story (MSN/India.com, 2021) Beccaynr (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All the provided by User:Beccaynr are not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence failed WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please be more specific about why each source fails GNG? The first few I looked at seemed ok, but you might be more familiar with these news sources than I am. pburka (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability. fails WP:ORG. Just a promotional article. RationalPuff (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per WP:WEB,This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia, and per WP:WEBCRIT,web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage [...], which may be why the related Humans of New York article exists. But it seems more relevant for this discussion that there are multiple, non-trivial published works independent of the website itself, as noted in my comment above, and per WP:INHERENTWEB,When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. To review sources per the applicable guideline, I offer the following source assessment table, with an emphasis on the significant and demonstrable effects of the website on culture, society, entertainment, etc:

These are not all of the sources available, and these are only English-language sources. Based on the popularity and significance of the website, it seems reasonable to assume that non-English sources also WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All the references provided here do not pass WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it is clear WP:ORGIND, i.e.Independence of the author (or functional independence) andIndependence of the content (or intellectual independence) are met, especially without any specific objections raised to any of the sources. In addition, there are WP:MULTSOURCES that are reliable, offer WP:SECONDARYanalysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, including WP:ORGDEPTH; in addition to WP:GNG, the source assessment table helps show WP:ORG notability is sufficiently supported for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a major point for notability (besides the reliable condition of the sources, well detailed by Beccaynr) is that it's India's largest blog. "That ain't beanbag", as Gandhi's British opposition used to say. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment None of the source is independent if you read those quotes. Smartly, it is been marked as discussion where only an owner of Humans of Bombay are providing news. Claims like India's largest blog is awkward and nowhere related to notability. 1друг (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The table is a summary overview, and a closer review of the sources can show that the table includes quotes from independent and reliable journalists, offering WP:SECONDARY context and commentary that support notability per multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Beccaynr. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' per Beccaynr's source analysis. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:46, 26 June 2021 (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.