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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namrata Purohit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable person who is a pilates instructor does not meet WP:GNG. FITINDIA (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, She is a trainer whose clients comprise of A-list Bollywood celebrities/notable personalities. She has also released a book on the same. All these people have spoken about her in various forms and she runs a very successful business in Mumbai. Wouldn't that count in the notable category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisfinal (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisfinal: Being a trainer of a notable person doesn't make one notable. Every subject on Wikipedia must be notable independently and this looks like a low-profile individual. I also don't see if it passes WP:AUTHOR as well and you mentioned she runs a very successful business so it would be nice if the article mentioned what kind of business she is in. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: I am trying to get a hang of Wikipedia, so please excuse my mistakes. I read the points on the page for Low Profile Individual, and she seems to fulfil all the points of a high profile individual. Listing them down as per my understanding:

Media Attention - she has been featured in magazines, newspapers and business newspapers too Promotional appearances: Has launched her own book which was attended by various notable personalities. Appearances: Reebok & Superdry have felicitated her and thrown an event in her honor Eminence: She is prominently known & credited for her work as a trainer, with her clientele including several notable personalities and her studio in Bombay is very famous and is said to be expanding to other cities as well, I read that on one of her articles.

Please do help, I have created 3-4 pages but facing a lot of problems with this particular page, if someone can guide me on this, would be great. Thisisfinal (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There are no in-depth articles about the subject. Anecdotal mentions in other articles does not make the subject notable. We could have thousands of articles just like this about a myriad of fitness instructors who have worked with 'celebrities' and have answered probing questions such as, "Tell us about yourself in 140 characters or less," and none of those articles would survive an AfD. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. Lourdes 16:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: All the articles I read about her showed her notability beyond just being a celebrity trainer, which is why I picked her page as one to create. There are detailed magazine articles, stories+interviews covering her work & her book in business newspapers - not just fluff sources. Thisisfinal (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes and Thisisfinal: Where are the secondary, third party sources establishing notability? even the current sources failed to indicate why the subject is notable? I agree with SW3 5DL above none of the citations provide in-depth coverage of her. They credit her for being a trainer of some Bollywood celebrities but still nothing much to support independent notability and WP:AUTHOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you might be misreading the notability guidelines. When an individual's life is covered significantly by multiple sources, the individual is presumed to qualify on general notability. The sources don't need to mention that this person has achieved some milestone or has been conferred some award. The current sources cover her life significantly. That's enough per GNG. Lourdes 10:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Out of 13 sources, I found only 4 (2,3,4 and 6) which talk about the subject in details but in the form of an interview which should be treated like self-published material and the rest of the sources has more focus on her celebrity client so I don't think it's enough for a stand-alone article. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, your reading of sources is against our guidelines. Being known for being a celebrity trainer is no less than being known for being an astronaut. I respect your difference of opinion though. Thanks. Lourdes 02:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Has enough WP:RS. The original version has her mentioned in Huffington Post and another mainstream site. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: This sources published by Huffington Post India (huffingtonpost.in) is a passing mention in a non-independent source. Her name was listed becasue she was one of the 12 girls who featured in Nike's advertisment. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is Huffington Post "non-independent"? Lourdes provided plenty of other sources. I'm not planning on changing my vote, because the source I looked at are more than sufficient. I think your standards for notability are too high. But reasonable people can disagree. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the source is independent to the subject? it's a clear passing mention which is fine to support her role in that advertisment but not to support notability and I also explained that we can not use interviews to support notability either per WP:IV. Please read what SW3 5DL has said as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Co-founder of a non-notable business and author of a non-notable book also same as SW3 5DL said above, There are no in-depth articles about the subject. Anecdotal mentions in other articles does not make the subject notable so fails to meet WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR and the subject also falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable co-founder of a non-notable business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is a pilates instructor with a studio in Mumbai and trainer to celebrities, Miss India pagaents, as well as the city's football team. Has been extensively covered by newspapers & magazines - because of her connection to celebrities all coverage does mention that but that doesn't take away from her own notability. Meets WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisfinal (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Thisisfinal (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
• Delete--Non-notable.Fails P:GNG.Lack of indep. sources.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Lourdes above. If every newspaper article in which the subject's words are quoted in first person is considered as self-published material, then half the Wiki pages would disappear. [7], [8], [9] were published in The Hindu, The New Indian Express and The Times of India respectively, all of them being reputed national news papers. All these articles have in depth coverage about the subject of this article. India Today calls her a fitness expert in [10]. GQ (Indian edition) also has in-depth coverage of her in [11]. UAE based newspaper The National also has decent coverage of her - [12], showing that her notability is not local. Firstpost delved into her history while covering the Nike Ad [13]. A G-News search gives scores of more results, making her notable enough according to my standards.

The idea that she is notable only because of her clients is also not valid. It stems from the archaic idea that a fitness trainer cannot have any independent notability, and is not based on facts. Costume designers, Make up artists, Hair stylists gain notability because their reputed clientele act as advertisements of their work, as is the case with this fitness trainer. That does not imply that practitioners of such jobs are non-notable on their own right, just because their clients happened to be A-listers. (Please rewrite the article with these new references Thisisfinal) Jupitus Smart 05:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Additional references added Thisisfinal (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is not inherited. A person who is the subject of an article has to be notable in their own right, and I can see no evidence that Namrata Purohit is. WP:REFFLOOD does not confer notability. Narky Blert (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2017 (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.