Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachana Shah

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. No other Delete votes, nothing to see here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Rachana Shah

WP:WITHDRAWN Withdrawn after suffcient review

No, withdrawn after this horrific edit by the nominator. Could a non-involved editor have a look, please?Esowteric+Talk 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Horrific ? be specific on what horrified you . Shrikanthv (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Does not meet Wiki GNG criteria and references qouted are possible work done by the person ( no proof of reference also) Shrikanthv (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I was asked to help rescue the article by the creator, a relatively new editor, Hewagpc (from the first of two A7 speedy deletion requests which were both declined). By and large, book design is an unsung profession. The book designer rarely gets a mention whilst the author takes the accolades. Reliable, secondary sources have described or commented on the design (which is a key feature of Timbuctoo) and even if they do not name the designer, nevertheless that is credit to the designer for the work; just as comment about the prose adds credit to the author, whether or not the reviewer names the author. This description in the media is, or should be, considered the equivalent of an artist having works featured in a public art gallery. There should not be a systemic bias in Wikipedia against a whole class of visual artist. Members of Book publishing people -> Category:Book artists, just twenty six; Book designers, one. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 14:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note Hi Esowteric yes i guess it is a unknown profession , often in the lime light may be , but the only thing i am concerend here is , she has resume linked as reference and the links seems to market her business , and the only thing the editor you have mentioned has edited the husband of rachana shah ( has considerable WikiGNG ) and one more person . it seems the editor may be is also strongly linked to Rachana shah or her husband , but it is going to be only adding reliable sources (sources from newspapers or any publication wp:rs as you know already ) can help as currently it seems pure promotion for me Shrikanthv (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Shrikanthv: I agree that in BLPs -- though not prohibited -- primary sources must be used "with extreme care". We appear to have two strands here: Rachana Shah the book designer and Rachana Shah the person. What, if anything, can be rescued? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 15:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The intention in creating this page was NOT promotion, but to provide information, as this page is linked to from other pages and removing this page will then create red links. So, in the light of attempting to improve this page and prevent deletion, how would you recommend improving it? First it was marked for speedy deletion because she wasn't thought to be notable enough. So we added more info on her career. Now, that same info that was added on her career leads YOU to think that this article is promotion. It seems like everyone has a different criteria, and this is totally arbitrary. Would you be happier if I removed all reference to her earlier career? What can we do here? Hewagpc (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We should assume good faith here. Esowteric+Talk 15:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrikanthv has a habit of accusing established editors of having a WP:COI such as being a promoter or agent and not assuming good faith. I find this pattern disturbing especially since he's used this as an excuse in the past to revert contributions and label them 'vandalism'. See [1] as an example that happened only a few days ago. This should be considered a second warning -- and further trends along calling legitimate contributions as vandalism or making baseless accusations will mean taking this to WP:ANI. Mkdw^talk 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment My main intentions are nothing but WP:GNG i am going to rewrite to sound neutral , YA I and MKDW were fighting over different article ,may be find me thus soo Shrikanthv (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"I am going to rework the article to get neutral POV". Is that a good idea at this stage, ast the start of an Afd brought by you? And I see no banners or tags in the article about NPOV. Maybe wait and see what uninvolved editors recommend? This edit beggars belief! Esowteric+Talk 07:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Beggar ? belief ? can you be more specific , please have detailed look of the things been deleted , it was written like a story and that too of a living person. i just deleted the fluffery and story telling tone out to make it look like a encyclopedia and not a novel Shrikanthv (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Completely baseless accusation against other editors and with out substantiation. This is not an acceptable grounds for an AfD and make this an illegitimate nomination in bad faith. In regards to the GNG comment, the article is about a published article and perhaps you missed The New York Times and The Independent references. Mkdw^talk 23:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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.