Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhabi Puri Buch

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 keep. Consensus appears to be that sourcing exists, and other issues can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madhabi Puri Buch[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO. Lack WP:NPOV, and WP:SIGCOV. Too many personal/intrinsic details are provided without sufficient sources. Besides that, Wikipedia is not Linkedin WP:NOTCV. Possible WP:UPE/WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete I see this article seems to have returned with sources now, however they seem very thin, there are some interesting mentions and a degree of notability, however it's nothing on the scale it needs to be to pass GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete, the way Wiki works is articles evolve over time from stubs to bigger articles and finally mature as encyclopedic content. So far its just me who has contributed. I think the person is notable in the small world of woman business leaders in India and should be kept for further improvement. Amitized (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article can be written when she hits our notability criteria. We can't "park" it here until she does. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Gensler is the US counterpart of Madhabi, heading the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Most of his bio is on pretty similar lines. So how is it different here? Amitized (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think she's notable yet for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'our purposes' ... can you elaborate? Amitized (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for wikipedia's notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
U K Sinha ex SEBI chairperson is a 9 line article, would that go too? Would we also consider deleting Gary Gensler too? Amitized (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This and this are significant coverage in reliable sources. Meeting WP:GNG. If UPE/COI issues are evident then this should be moved to draft space. Hitro talk 08:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The WP:CITEKILL to verify that she is one of the 26/11 survivors with 8 citations is absolutely overkill. Corporate career is unsourced. Improve in draftspace and go thru Wikipedia:Articles for creation — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of that WP:CITEKILL verifies, comments, or adds context about her and her career, and I have moved most of the references and started adding them to text they support. WP:GNG appears supported by the in-depth coverage focused on her, including as noted above in The Hindu and Mint, and also the Financial Express, GQ India, MoneyControl and Bloomberg. There is also previous coverage focused on her, e.g. The Hindu BusinessLine (2020), Business Today (2010). Beccaynr (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Between 08:41 and 09:01, 18 May 2022, the nominator has taken the following actions on articles created by the creator of this article: declined an article at AfC, sent three articles to AfD, and draftified one article. While there is a brief discussion in April on the article creator's Talk page about the appearance of UPE based on an editing pattern related to a movie, the editor raising the issue also mentioned WP:AGF. Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequately presented and sourced. Surprising nomination.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hindu article [1] is extremely high quality from Wiki guidelines stand point. Considering that with other albeit scattered coverage, is significant enough to keep it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has adequate coverage and passes WP:GNG. Samanthany (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2022 (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.