Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pramada Menon

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 merge to Nivedita Menon. This is, as Madness points out, a difficult nomination to close. XfD, though seeking a generation of consensus, is not a vote, and assertions of notability that fall short of the requirement of in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources, or assertions that notability will be discovered in the future can not be weighed in favor of a subject. With respect to WBG's concern that BLPs should not point to other BLPs, that is a valid concern, but the subject in this case is already mentioned in the proposed target article, and asserted familial relationship between the BLPs does not appear to be in controversy. Even if there were no discussion here, the proposed target article would be the natural redirect target for the term. Of course, this close is without prejudice to the article being restored should sufficient sources be found. bd2412 T 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pramada Menon[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:GNG and WP:ANYBIO ∯WBG^converse 11:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a little more information about her activism and her artistic work (film and standup). She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GNG necessitates multiple instances of significant coverage. She gets a host of trivial mentions (mainly as general acknowledgments of help in scholarly publications) but barring an interview over a city-supplementary of the Hindu (which FWIW, are almost always paid-for), am not seeing remotely anything like that. FWIW, Plainspeak ain't a RS. You are requested to provide the specific sources that lends to GNG and quote the exact passages. ∯WBG^converse 06:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LiveMint is an RS. The Hindu is an RS (and unless you can definitively show this one was paid, then don't say it was.) Why do you feel that Plainspeak not an RS? It's a digital magazine with submission guidelines, etc. It's not a blog. All of her "mentions" in scholarly publications are pretty significant indicating a person that's respected in her field. All put together add up to GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ever definitely prove that something was paid (follow the link, in case you thought that it was just me!) but interviews/coverage in metro supplements are almost-always paid (and they don't really carry colorful banners proclaiming they are paid).

Pray provide some of those significant mentions in scholarly sources. (Quote the paragraphs, please.)

As DLinker says below, Plainspeak is not a RS. A website of a NGO, masquerading as a scholarly magazine and an interview over there contributes nothing to notability.

The Mint (merely) has a review of their work. ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably Merge to Nivedita Menon and mention there in the family section. The problem here is largely because the few articles in (reliable) Indian media are all interviews. Not that I have anything against interviews, but I think we should not use them for notability since it is not really a third person's view. Some of the other sources like Plainspeak are not really reliable sources, it is actually the website of an NGO. I have known about Pramada Menon's work since a while and she has done some good work; unfortunately most of it is behind the scenes which is perhaps not flashy or sensational enough to be covered in media. There is a good chance though that in the coming years there could be coverage about their work. Perhaps a good solution right now would be to merge some of the information into the article of Nivedita Menon under the family section and not outright delete the article. I cannot support an outright keep here, so a merge would be best--DreamLinker (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all aspects. But, am very skeptical about redirecting BLPs to other BLPs ... ∯WBG^converse 13:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the work done by Megalibrarygirl, which seems to point a bit more towards notability. DreamLinker's points, too, are solid, making this a close and difficult decision. Madness ^Darkness 23:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may not fulfill the notability issues for now, but it can improved in the coming days. It can be further expanded and the article is available in other languages as well. Despite the issues, I would still prefer to keep this. Abishe (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might take a look at WP:AADD. Thanks for saying It may not fulfill the notability issues for now; once she fulfills, we can recreate her article for we are not a crystal-ball. ∯WBG^converse 15:07, 31 October 2019 (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.