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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Nair (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)

Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards Floralbergamot (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the subject has received virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Based on the contents of the article, such as using the subject's personal website as a source numerous times and directing the reader to articles archived on the subject's personal website, it was possibly created as a result of self-promotion. Floralbergamot (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not quite notable activist, coverage is mostly in articles she's written, or stuff about spats she's having with one person or another...[1]. I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a bigoted attack. The page is defaced all the time. She's a published author cited by others. This should NOT be removed 67.253.77.78 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I created the prior deletion proposal for this article when I came across it and it was poorly sourced, mostly with links to the subject’s blog, and seemed very likely an act of self-promotion. The deletion proposal was not accepted at that time, and so I have tried to improve the quality of this page with biographical information on her background and education. Even then I have had to rely on primary sources, such as the subject’s answers in interviews for a non-peer reviewed community history project. I still believe the subject falls very short of Wikipedia’s standards of notability for, which are very clear. The closest the subject comes to notability is authoring two chapters in a self-published book with other non-notable individuals. Wikipedia’s notability standard for academics is for those who have made an outstanding contribution. Outside of the academy, none of her activity meets the basic criteria for notable people. QueerRigor (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while sourcing needs to improve, I think this subject falls under WP:ANYBIO. The Hypocrite Reader interview is substantive as is this podcast interview.--User:Namiba 22:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The linked Evergreen Review podcast averages under 100 listens per episode. The episode interviewing the subject has only amassed 550 listens in the three years since it was published.

  Both it and the Hypocrite Reader piece are interviews. Such primary sources, per the notability standard, “may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.” QueerRigor (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2024 (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.