Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meena Ganesh

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 Deleted per Copyvio. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Ganesh

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

Wikipedia as usual used by such people to create their profile and promote themselves. What so important and significant about such Biography is highly doubtful. Even doubtful who even Knows these couples? Is it really an encyclopedia material we are creating here. Non-Notable to read or even know about. Atleast in the present situation. Later they can also make article if become notable by public view. Light2021 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 01:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 09:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Answer to nominator's question (Who even knows these couples?): Forbes, India Today, Times of India, Economic Times, more. A WP:BEFORE is always helpful for writing a good rationale. Anup [Talk] 23:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read them, typical Q/A answer are given by none other than those couple. How such things make anything Encyclopedic Notable, that is exact question and how many media references you can quote or who covered a script. How much they help in making a history or creating greater impact? Notability with impact that is what lacks in all those media coverage. Their company has already Speedy Deleted from Wikipedia. On what ground these founders have credibility to even Wikipedia material? Light2021 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You answered an unasked question! I was just saying they are not that relatively unknown couple as you interpreted in your nomination rationale (and that might be because you did not perform BEFORE). That's just it. I didn't argue for anything. Anup [Talk] 14:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happening to look at these sources, I see the exact blatancy I noted below with my own comments, noting that not only are these articles parallel with saying the same advertising-focused words, but they are interviews so they are founded with the same person who is both the advertiser and the advertisee. Therefore noting that they are news therefore they must be acceptable, is not the same thing if they are all sugarcoated with advertising, and we'll never compromise with that.

Delete -- promotion only; should be deleted same as Portea Medical. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article passes GNG. Clicking on HighBeam, there is a 2012 article from India Today which is a full profile on her, and a 2012 article which discusses her in part in the Hindustan Times. If you search for her name in conjunction with Times of India, you get: 2016 article about her and several articles about her and her husband who she works with and her name pops up in several books on Google book search. She's mentioned in a ton of other articles, too. Some of these were already listed in the article as sources. The article itself is pretty bare, and I don't see how it's "promotional" in tone just because she's notable for being in business. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly advertising everything there is to advertise about her and her businesses, and one note we have to always note as it is, is the fact Indian news is notoriously paid for and with advertising motivations at that, therefore we cannot barely take it as an acceptable news source at that alone, and looking closely shows this to be the case, therefore especially with such advertising blatancy, delete. Let me note that, to make it clearer, "a full profile" in an Indian news website makes it heavier to in fact be a paid advertisement, therefore we cannot begin to say it's acceptable.

The sole basis of "she's mentioned at other articles and some are listed here" is also not a convincing for keeping this, again especially considering the fact this sole article exists as an advertisement and (1) the fact this was never touched again but also the fact the account only focused with such advertising. Also, as a clear note, it also emphasizes the concerns when all newspapers care to focus with the same lines of "fluffpuff" so that's especially advertising-motivated. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-@SwisterTwister:Can you explain the rationale behind your statement-"Indian news is notoriously paid for"?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Sshould be deleted same as Portea Medical.Mentions only in advertorial sources.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not enough independent coverage on the subject. South Nashua (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the assertion that some Delete !voters have made that she is only mentioned in articles is incorrect and means that they haven't properly evaluated the sources, many of which I took time to add to the article. Also, the idea that the news in India is paid for needs to be backed up with a reliable source itself. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill entrepreneur. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to previously mentioned sources, here's an 11 minute interview from international source France24, she won The Economic Times "Woman Ahead" startup award, and here's Wharton calling her and her husband "India's best-known entrepreneur couple". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a number of sources deal with both her and her husband, no objection to retargetting the page to cover the couple and merging in the deleted page (ref the sparsely participated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishnan Ganesh). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here's significant coverage of the couple but focussing on her in a book published by Penguin. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:38, 17 November 2016 (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.