- 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rani Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not establish notability using reliable sources. Searching Google News, the BBC website and The Guardian archives I can find no relevant matches under this name. I do not doubt that she exists and has worked in journalism but non-availability of sources appears to make additions of sources that unequivocally demonstrate notability unlikely for the near future; particularly considering that the article has been tagged as not citing any sources for two and half years (close to being the longest currently tagged as such). —Ash (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because lacks notability. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did find some sources, e.g. a BBC press release [1] noting a role in a radio drama and a previous role on Eastenders, but there's no coverage suggesting these were significant. There's also one of her own sites [2] promoting her work as a puppeteer, it has her radio/television work and books in links on the left but I can't find secondary coverage to back up her own claims of significance there. She has appeared on news channels as an outside commentator, but then so have thousands of others. She does have a blog at the Huffington Post, but the article on HP says there are 3,000 such contributors at that site. Holly25 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huffington Post is not the best source to pin notability on. Generally a blogger's notability would have to be demonstrated elsewhere before their opinions on the HP site would be useful as a source. See WP:RS/N for previous discussion on this site, one example thread is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.—Ash (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I said "Delete". I was responding to the claim in the article lead that she "currently writes for the Huffington Post".(edit: sorry, thought I'd been misread as a "keep") Holly25 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huffington Post is not the best source to pin notability on. Generally a blogger's notability would have to be demonstrated elsewhere before their opinions on the HP site would be useful as a source. See WP:RS/N for previous discussion on this site, one example thread is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.—Ash (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satisfies WP:ENT. the BBC press release [3] easily verifies that she had more than 1 significant role in notable productions. ie, Sufia Karim ("one of the first key Asian roles in Eastenders") and Surinder - Silver Street (described as a top talent to join the show). The article is now significantly more encyclopedic. Annette46 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are not always reliable independent sources. As a "top talent" and considering the astonishing popularity of EastEnders there should be a wealth of independent reliable sources that can be added to the article. Perhaps someone could point some out?—Ash (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can find is her IMDb entry[4], which credits her in four episodes (100 episodes have been produced each year since the mid-80s), suggesting it wasn't a recurring character, which I guess is a baseline for significance in a soap with that volume of episodes. Holly25 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to doubt these as facts, though IMDB is not a reliable source for notability on its own as it is maintained by user contributions (not necessarily verified). Previous discussions about IMDB are available in the WP:RS/N archive.—Ash (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: I meant that being a recurring character would be a baseline for significance, not that those four episodes implied significance. Holly25 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird, does User:Holly25 who voted here for a keep [5] now opine that a 5 episodes appearance in a clearly non-notable TV production of the The Loop (TV series) is somehow more notable than 4 (dubious) named appearences in EastEnders spread over 3 years and see this [6] ? Annette46 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, why not. He appeared in roughly a third of all episodes of that show. Eastenders, by comparison, is a soap that puts out 100 episodes a year. The source on the page you linked is handy for establishing the significance of her role: "Few but the most fanatical soap fans will remember Albert Square's Karim family". Not a great case for the "key Asian role" in her PR, and she doesn't even mention it on her website. Holly25 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was an opinion expressed 15 years later (place it in context - don't cherry-pick) by a critic (from a regional tabloid rag) commenting on racial stereotyping in the show. The IMDB filmography only has some episodes from 1990 whereas the character ran from 1988-1990 (3 years in a hit soap is by no stretch insignificant), see this also [7] for "Rani Singh is best known for her role in Eastenders for 3 years as shopkeeper Sufia Karim" and this [8] for "Those of you guys who fancy sexy Asian TV star RANI SINGH, formerly of EASTENDERS and the longest serving Asian actress in soap". Annette46 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't pick the "regional tabloid rag", if better quality sources existed then we'd be using them. Your first link is a web-only magazine of unknown significance, the second is an online free gossip column which, on scrolling down, looks like it's only being used to promote the author's "best selling video, Loo Time: Toilet Technique Without Tears". The problem here is that we don't have a single reliable source on which to base this article, the closest we have being the BBC press release. Holly25 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird, does User:Holly25 who voted here for a keep [5] now opine that a 5 episodes appearance in a clearly non-notable TV production of the The Loop (TV series) is somehow more notable than 4 (dubious) named appearences in EastEnders spread over 3 years and see this [6] ? Annette46 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: I meant that being a recurring character would be a baseline for significance, not that those four episodes implied significance. Holly25 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to doubt these as facts, though IMDB is not a reliable source for notability on its own as it is maintained by user contributions (not necessarily verified). Previous discussions about IMDB are available in the WP:RS/N archive.—Ash (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can find is her IMDb entry[4], which credits her in four episodes (100 episodes have been produced each year since the mid-80s), suggesting it wasn't a recurring character, which I guess is a baseline for significance in a soap with that volume of episodes. Holly25 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are not always reliable independent sources. As a "top talent" and considering the astonishing popularity of EastEnders there should be a wealth of independent reliable sources that can be added to the article. Perhaps someone could point some out?—Ash (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The gossip site is a Knight International publication who among other things (incl. property dev in Bulgaria) sponsor this [9] prestigious journalism award along with Bill Gates. The asianmedia website has these endorsements [10] and there's nothing to show as yet that they are not what they claim to be "UK's only British Asian media industry publication, which reaches out to over 4,000 media professionals currently, including the biggest mainstream and Asian media companies in the UK." Annette46 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two completely separate "Knight" organizations, I'm afraid. The reputable one you mention is the Knight Foundation, a US charitable foundation involved in education. The one associated with hotgossip.co.uk has a similar name but as you can see from their own site, [11], is an "international property sales, marketing and property development company" based in the UK. The online gossip column seems to be a means of directing people to their own adverts for Bulgarian property development, so it's not a reliable source by any stretch. As for the asianmedia website: the endorsements are self-published and if you read them carefully you'll notice they were written before this web-only trade magazine started; they are "good luck with this new venture" messages rather than any comment on the standards of the publication. Their editorial model, as shown here, is driven by people sending in press releases (standard for free trade publications) which means it would not usually be considered an independent, reliable source. We're still in the position of having no reliable secondary coverage for this person. Holly25 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The gossip site is a Knight International publication who among other things (incl. property dev in Bulgaria) sponsor this [9] prestigious journalism award along with Bill Gates. The asianmedia website has these endorsements [10] and there's nothing to show as yet that they are not what they claim to be "UK's only British Asian media industry publication, which reaches out to over 4,000 media professionals currently, including the biggest mainstream and Asian media companies in the UK." Annette46 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 18:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This doesn't seem to be very clear cut which is presumably why it's been relisted repeatedly. Singh is mentioned in a number of news stories, often just offering a soundbite bit of "analysis" on some issue pertaining to Southeast Asia. She's clearly a working journalist with a number of projects to her credit (which strikes me as more important than a small part in a popular British soap opera), but I'm not convinced that the coverage of her in reliable sources is actually significant per the GNG. Given those doubts my slight preference is to delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not paper, so when in doubt, keep. - EdvardMunch (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? No... there is no doubt here... DELETE. JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is not even close. Rani Singh has received no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk)
- Delete does not meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage RadioFan (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (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.