Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina Patwa

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Patwa[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for notability since June. All sources are press releases or trivial mentions that show the subject exists, but give no indication of notability. Repeated failure of those editing the article to provide any sources that indicate notability has convinced me that the subject is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It appears that the company she works for is more notable than she is at this time. A lot of mere mentions, but that cannot establish notability, sadly. SarahStierch (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The only person who has been tagging this for notability issues since June is Edward321, who has been acting in bad faith by repeatedly removing reliable, neutral, secondary sources that were accurate and written in good faith from this page and merely adding issue tags without adequate explanation particularly when asked by other users and editors to provide reasoning for disputed tags after they made fact-based contributions in a civil manner. On Edward321's talk page in September 2013, users Mdann52 and Dru of Id agreed with other editors to remove the issue tags, including on notability, yet Edward321 persisted. Other editors have removed the notability tag based on the sources, which users such as GB fan kept in later edits. And SarahStierch, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention and from a neutral point of view, which the sources provide. Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. There are other articles such as Jennifer Rudolph Walsh, Patrick Whitesell, George Shapiro, Jon Simmons, Mary Jo Slater, Kirk Sommer, Nancy Nigrosh, Matthew McGurk, Scott Lipps, Sam Gores, Chafie Fields, Rodney Afshari, Yogi Allgood and Richard Arlook with similar source materials that are not flagged for deletion or notability issues, who could also subjectively be argued are not more notable than the companies they work for at this time. Stillknight (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Stillknight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Stillknight the status of other articles have no bearing on this article. Each article is looked at individually to see whether it belongs in the encyclopedia. If the other articles do not meet our notability guidelines they can be dealt with in their own discussions. You might want to read the essay, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. note:I made a small change to your post above and linked my username. GB fan 16:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, GB fan. Your point is exactly what I was trying to make in response to SarahStierch's comment comparing notability of a company to a person, which has no bearing in justifying to delete this article. Stillknight (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my comment: [1]; I did not mention the tags directly, but my comment was not in support. Dru of Id (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Examination of my talk page[2] shows that Dru of Id (as they note above) also found the article's sourcing inadequate. Gryllida also attempted to explain to the spa why the sourcing was inadequate. Edward321 (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source from Edward321's talk page was the LATimes: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-factorymade-20130910,0,1723531,full.story which is why the other users were not in support of tags.Stillknight (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just sufficient notability . Tho an article need not be mainly about the subject, it must offer substantial coverage of it. The LA Times article does that, and the LA Times is the best source for this sort of topic. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 20 December 2013 (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.