Deletion of Samhita Mukhopadhyay

Comment: I can't see a single indepdendent, reliable, biographical source about ''her''.  The India Currents interview seems best and the Nirali interview tolerable, but I can't see the earmarks of either being a reliable source.  (Where is the ombudsman?  Where are the corrections to prior errors?  I can't find these.)  What I do see is sources about Feministing.com.  Both of the aforementioned items are primarily about feminesting in the first place.  The ''identical'' Alternet and Wiretap piece are clearly about the blogsite, not about this blogger.  (How much "independent editorial oversight" is there if they post the exact same thing by a single author anyway?  The evidence leans toward zero.)  Plus she blogs/writes for Wiretap, so it is not an independent source.  The Austin Chronicle article is not about her, and the only coverage of her it gives us is "an editor for Feministing.com and a Web manager at the Oakland, Calif.-based Center for Media Justice. Her writing focuses on transnational feminisms, race, media justice and policy, pop culture, and music" - that is clearly not substantial coverage.  Per , while her notability still stems from one activity, it is better to cover the activity than the person.  So smerge to Feministing.  When and ''if'' substantial biographical coverage of her emerges, then we can reconsider.  But what is available today does not meet the test
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: I was asked to take a look at this {{tl|afd}}.  Since I was asked to come here I won't state an opinion.  But I will comment that I don't dismiss a reference that calls itself a "blog", or whose critics call it a "blog", just because it has been called a blog.  First, a lot of things that are called blogs are not really blogs at all.  Some newspapers pay their columnists to write online columns, and call them "blogs".  Some online sites have editorial oversight, just like a printed publication.  Since it is the editorial oversight that made printed publications more valuable than some kook rambling away in his or her basement, the online sites with editorial oversight shouldn't be dismissed as just a blog.  When a person who has independent notability publishes some of their thoughts online, in a serious manner, those writings should generally be regarded as .  Some online publications generally resemble the blogs that are not regarded as reliable or remarkable -- except that they are regarded as reliable or remarkable.  Ana Marie Cox, the original Wonkette would be one example.  She went from publishing a blog that became widely quoted to a job in the MSM.  Similarly, the talking dog blog is widely quoted because of the caliber of the guests he interviews, and the overall reasonableness of his well-researched comments.  Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: for failing to meet . No in-depth coverage by independent, non-blog publications
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)