Talk:Shubhada Varadkar

[Untitled]

I do not agree that this page should be deleted because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about all knowledge and this biography adds to the body of knowledge. This article adheres to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy

• She is an Odissi dancer preserving and propagating this art form
• A documentary has been made on her work https://scroll.in/reel/893106/in-documentary-peacock-plume-the-stirring-story-of-how-shubhada-varadkar-danced-around-cancer Scroll.in
• She has been awarded the Maharashtra Cultural Award for her work
• She is an empanelled artist with ICCR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Council_for_Cultural_Relations
• She has a senior fellowship from Ministry of Culture govt of India

I propose that other editors can contribute to strengthen the article. This article should not be deleted as it is a biography of a living person and none of the citations are libelous and hence they do not go against the Wikipedia policy.Kiran Java (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Reference review for notability.

Declined through AfC and moved to mainspace by submitter. The following is a review the sources.

1. Global Indian is a blog with very little traffic and no editorial oversight listed. CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

2. Nettv4U is a profile piece on a website that allows you to make your own profile.

3. Latestly, one sentence mention of an award that does not appear significant. Cannot vouch for the reliability of the website.

This is a SIGNIFICANT Award by the Maharashtra gvt. more information on this award is in this paper https://maharashtratimes.com/maharashtra/mumbai-news/state-cultural-award-announced/articleshow/62609333.cmsKiran Java (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

4. Nettv4U, same as #2 above.

5. Sanjeevani Life Beyond Cancer, this is a puff piece on what appears to be a non-profit organization website. Source not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

6. Indian Council for Cultural Relations, I am not sure exactly what this list is but her name is on it with a link to YouTube. Mention and directory listing which is not significant.

Here is more information about ICCR on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Council_for_Cultural_RelationsKiran Java (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

7. Newsband, an interview so not independent. The publication states it is an English newspaper in New Bombay but there is no editorial oversight listed whatsoever. It also receives little traffic which makes me think this is a blog masquerading as a newspaper. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

8. Ada2030, only mention is in the bio of the author (the subject's niece) as inspiration for writing the piece. No other information included. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

9 AsianAge, a simply mention verifying she is the cousin to the subject in the article. Nothing significant.

10 Irish Times, this is a link to tags, not an article. I viewed the articles and found this which is a short piece talking about her cousin, nothing significant about her.

11 The Better India, this is more of a mention, Article is her mom who talks about Shubhada's dancing. Not independent and not significant.

12. DNA India, this one is about her grandmother with a single mention of Shubhada. Not significant coverage.

13. Mid-Day, this one is closer but still falls short of being significant. It talks about her autobiography and could be used as a source to support such, but does not have any weight for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

14. Her book which is an autobiography. Can be used as a primary source for certain things, but never to establish notability.

15. Scroll.in, this is the first reference where a case could potentially be made for notability. It is about a documentary based on her autobiography.

16. Sanjeevani Life Beyond Cancer, duplicate of #5 above.

17. Hindustan Times, brief mention of her being part of a festival. Passing mention and not significant.

18. NCPA Mumbai, commercial site, advertisement for a function, not significant. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

19. Eoicaracas, another mention of a function. Mention and not significant. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

20. The Times of India, this is a good article, but per WP:RSP, there is no real consensus for reliability and it is know for accepting payments for coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

21. Maharashtra, duplicate of #3 above.

22. & 23. No link but these are duplicates of #5 above.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The two references you supplied do not show how they are significant coverage which is what is up for debate. You can use the AfD discussion page to place a vote and provide any argument to keep the page. I do want to ask why you submitted the draft to RfC if you were going to just move it anyway? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Kiran Java: