Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritu Rathee Taneja

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 delete. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Rathee Taneja[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)

Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, not notable. Most of the refs are interviews (some clearly PR thing), failing the need for the sources to be independent. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I thought about nominating as well but I wasn't too sure. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, All references are in favor of the article. When the article was created, the administrator himself removed the Speedy deletion notice from the article - stating that the references were in favor. Edit History Mr. Wiki Indian (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Wiki Indian:, Can you elaborate what do you mean by "All references are in favor of the article", because just having some links as references is not sufficient, the sources need to reliable and independent and should have significant coverage of the subject. (in this case, some of the reference source may be reliable but most of them are interviews and PR articles which can't be considered independent) Zoodino (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this account is a sock of LowSlo, I've reported and awaiting admin intervention here

Delete Lack of reliable references that are independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG. DMySon 07:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above (ignoring the sock vote) Spiderone 14:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Information shared on page is without any proper source and can misguide people Good123321 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC) (Comment moved here from outside the AfD template by Vanamonde93, as it was breaking the syntax. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 3 August 2020 (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.