Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raquel Evita Saraswati (3rd nomination)

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 Speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion provided. (non-admin closure) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Evita Saraswati

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Some editors have expressed concerns that she requested in 2013 through ORTS that an article about her should not be created, a request that was honored. It's possible that this issue might arise again in 2023. This AfD might have occurred at some point anyway, given the nature of the topic. I think she has now achieved sufficient notability, and we can write based on what reliable sources say, regardless of the subject's wishes. In my research, I found numerous in-depth references in reliable sources such as The Intercept, Philadelphia Magazine, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, and The Juggernaut. Skeus (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Intercept and USA Today give clear GNG; subject is not a private figure and quite regularly participates in public events and speaks to the media. That said, we should be quite careful about the other sources, like the Metro, in the article with clearly biased headlines. I think there may be something to say about stubbifying the article. Fermiboson (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I asked you to submit this as a draft, not move it to mainspace and then nominate it for AFD yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think draftspace submission is obligatory. Skeus (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. I said that you had the option of deletion review or running the draft through AFC to establish that things had sufficiently changed since the last AFD. I undeleted it on the condition that you use AFC. An AFD that you started yourself is improper because you don't want it deleted. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close as the nominator doesn't want the article they wrote deleted. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Islam, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 25 November 2023 (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.