Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upasana Kamineni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No prejudice against including the information in an article about her family / the family's business, as per CBS527's argument that the majority of her coverage comes from that. ♠PMC(talk) 03:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upasana Kamineni[edit]

Upasana Kamineni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional and non-notable DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article and sources fail to establish notability. What we have is a person who is involved in her family business (Apollo Hospitals Group) - editor of a magazine with a small circulation and distributed by her family business, vice-chairman of Apollo Charity (family business charity). WP:NOTLINKEDIN is part of our policy of "What Wikipedia is not". WP:GNG is a guideline and it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article - not guaranteed that a subject should be included. In this case, the subject should not have a stand-alone article— because it violates what Wikipedia is not. CBS527Talk 01:44, 1 May 2017 (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.