Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disha Ravi


 * 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 no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus and a well-supported argument that the subject was already notable in terms of coverage prior to the arrest that serves as the basis of the WP:BLP1E assertion. Given the volume and divided nature of participation, it does not appear that further relisting will yield a clearer resolution. BD2412 T 19:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Disha Ravi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Being of the few who have been arrested does not establish notability. Wareon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I had moved the page to Arrest of Disha Ravi forseeing something like this! DTM (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you proposing we delete Arrest of Disha Ravi as well? DTM (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Question:, are you proposing the text be deleted or are you proposing the text be moved to Arrest of Disha Ravi?
 * Had the article been created post-arrest this question would have been valid. The page was created prior to the farmers' protests as well so calling it "inherited notability" also fails. The Vogue and Citizen Matters links make a case for notability of the subject in herself as a climate change activist while the arrest has only pushed her into world view. Vikram Vincent 06:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was moved back to Disha Ravi. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. The person was notable much before the arrest. In fact the page was created in November 2020 with suitable citations. Vikram Vincent 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the BBC has covered her arrest. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56060232 Vikram Vincent 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Public outcry over her arrest covered by WP:RS https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/academics-activists-condemn-disha-ravis-arrest-say-govt-distracting-real-issues-143429 Vikram Vincent 18:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV established with The New Indian Express giving page one coverage. Vikram Vincent 05:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV: Is being a part of Time magazine report lend a hand to notability? https://time.com/5939627/disha-ravi-india-toolkit-arrest/ Vikram Vincent 12:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. My analysis of sources is as follow:


 * BBC only talks about arrest.
 * Vogue has only quotes from the subject, no significant coverage.
 * The Wire makes no mention of "Disha Ravi"
 * Arre.co.in is an unreliable source that makes no mention of "Disha Ravi".
 * The News Minute is reporting same thing as BBC about arrest.
 * Bengaluru.citizenmatters.in provides no biographic details but only covers her small interview.
 * Boldsky.com is same as above. Just small interview.
 * The Guardian only provides a quote by the subject.


 * Clearly, some of the sources are misused and most of them provide no significant coverage. She is known for being arrested over farmers protests but not everyone arrested over the protests require article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:There are over 30 40 50 sources in the article and Aman's analysis, which was made at the beginning, does not hold anymore. Please look at the newer sources before voting. Thanks. Vikram Vincent  06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a single source is any different than what has been already analyzed above. Instead of updating about every single source you add, how about you just show multiple reliable sources that provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest? I know that is not possible at this moment, and that is exactly the point. Shankargb (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep she was notable before the arrest -- the arrest further highlighted her relationship to the international climate movement, which was why she was notable to begin with, Sadads (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, coverage is increasing exponentially, and planet-wide. Any arguments about lack of sources prior to this are based on outdated information and should be ignored. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fails neither WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination seems based on the premise of the article subject being arrested yesterday would be the reason for encyclopedic inclusion. This article was created in November; she's not notable because of being arrested, but for other work. /Julle (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Reasons others described well. Honestly, I failed to see the rational behind this nomination. RationalPuff (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per analysis of sources by Aman.kumar.goel. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources apart from those who are talking about recent arrest. See WP:NOTNEWS. Srijanx22 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Sources before the arrest say nothing other than her interview as a part of larger article as right described above. Vague handwaves does not change this. Shankargb (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The tag placed here was not WP:ASPERSION but reasonable concern as your talk page has at least five sections with warnings related to disruptive editing in similar areas and two DS alerts in under one year, last being given to you yesterday. Vikram Vincent 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to derail this AfD with your continued WP:DE any further will be reported to WP:ANI. Be warned. Shankargb (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Third threat by, first on my talk page then below krao212 and now here. Please go ahead and report. Best! Vikram Vincent 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no scarcity of such 'climate activists' because there are too many. For a name, you can also create article about Mitzi Jonelle Tan and say that notability exists. But what requires is significant coverage in independent sources. The subject that has become more notable is 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, but not this subject whose notability relies on the protest as of now. desmay (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG, including based on the sources I have added to the article, which includes in-depth reporting on more than Ravi's arrest, and includes coverage of her past activism, education, and current prominence. As a co-founder of the 'Fridays For Future' campaign, she has been referred to as 'Bengaluru’s Greta' by the New Indian Express, and this may help explain the intense interest in her arrest and incarceration, as well as the prior and current coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Subject fails "WP:GNG". No significant coverage provided by independent reliable sources apart from her recent arrest. Hundreds have been arrested in these 'protests'. No way we would want articles for each of them. Shankargb (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:BLP1E, there is reporting that is not just about a single event, but also includes the larger context of her past activism, her association with past and current protests, and Greta Thunberg. Ravi also wasn't previously low-profile, because per the WP:LOWPROFILE explanatory supplement, she had given "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", e.g. British Vogue, as a notable commentator, and "participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for [...] a cause," and she is engaged in "high-profile activity." Per WP:BLP1E, her arrest also appears to be significant, including based on the increasing amount of sources added to the Reactions section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why they don't talk about her significantly without discussing mostly about her arrest? It is because this person is known for single event. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify, per WP:LOWPROFILE, Ravi gave interviews to British Vogue and The Guardian in September 2020, before her arrest, which helps demonstrate that she is not WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Aman.kumar.goel's analysis of sources. Sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Nothing to show direct, in depth coverage of the subject. Many added sources do not even mention the subject and I question why they were added, and fail WP:NOR. Additionally, I think this falls into WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps there will be more significant coverage in the future, but does not seem to currently meet WP:GNG. Bigpencils (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * — Bigpencils (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The account has been primarily linked to AFD discussions.


 * Delete Only being noticed over the recent arrest per WP:BLP1E. I can support a redirect to 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest since she is one of the many who have been arrested, but separate article is unwarranted. Mukt (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As others have pointed out, subject was notable before her arrest; this is not a newly created article. Funcrunch (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nom and findings by Aman Kumar Goel Kichu🐘 Discuss 07:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. I can't see if she has done anything notable in her career that attracted media attention except her recent arrest. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Delete Her only known event is indeed the sharing of toolkit as part of protests. Aside that the subject has a lack of significant coverage. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Not every arrest is notable. Neither you become notable just because you are a climate activist, also WP:notnews Shrikanthv (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BASIC, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. With over 30 WP:RS, there is zero evidence to show it fails. Vikram Vincent 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is well sourced, and I see no reason to delete it. If there wasn't a controversy around this, I doubt that this page would have received so much deletion-attention. Tanyasingh (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of attention in major news media. Here's an in-depth article in The Guardian from today, 15 February 2021. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
 * The Guardian article only talks about her arrest, which is nothing more than routine coverage. It does not change that the subject really fails WP:1E. LearnIndology (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - No brainer. Well sourced article, she has worked hard for climate change. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete See WP:NOTNEWS. LearnIndology (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. A good majority of WP:ILIKEIT comments above haven't proven how the subject is notable. Tessaracter (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * whose comments do you think are WP:ILIKEIT? Vikram Vincent 14:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep although she may not be popular unlike Thai activist Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, I feel that the subject passes WP:GNG as there is a wide media coverage mainly focusing about her arrest. Yes this is a case of WP:1E. Abishe (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Numerous people, including her, have been arrested in relation to the 26 January riots and the alleged Khalistani separatist propaganda. That clearly does not make her notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. 203.192.236.24 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is not about a person who is notable, WP:BIO. The girl is only in the news as she was arrested in a case. That reason alone is not sufficient to create a Wikipedia page. Amavas Ki Raat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * — Amavas Ki Raat (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete The notability of the subject is being inherited from 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, as such the subject lacks notability on the basis independent of the subject about which the article already exists. Krao212 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you know the above editor? I dont think you should remove a notice that has been placed as per procedure listed in the header. The account of krao212 was created ten months ago and their talk page has two DS alerts and almost ten sections dealing with disruptive editing which is reasonable concern for either SPA or canvassing. Vikram Vincent 05:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's no evidence of 'canvassing'. I have removed the above misleading tagging again made in violation of WP:NPA (it is fine to remove it). If you did it again then you will land in WP:ANI for this continued WP:DE. Shankargb (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the second time you have threatened me, first being on my talk page. I would suggest that you please go ahead and report me if you think my actions are unreasonable. I have followed the process having due concern. Vikram Vincent 05:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Based on the recent and past reporting, Ravi's WP:GNG notability also appears to be based on her past and current work as a climate activist, not simply her involvement with the 2020-2021 Indian farmers' protest. e.g. Farmers toolkit case: Aarey to EIA, Goa to Dehra Dun, Disha Ravi part of many climate causes (The Indian Express), Delhi Police Arrests Climate Activist Disha Ravi, Who is She? (The Quint), From climate activist to 'Toolkit Editor', who is Disha Ravi? (Economic Times), Who is Disha Ravi, the climate activist arrested by Delhi police? (Scroll.in), Who is Disha Ravi? All you need to know about the 21-year-old climate change activist held in Greta Thunberg toolkit case (The Free Press Journal). Beccaynr (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 and also note for closing admin this particular case is quite polarizing because its caught up in the larger political environment around the farmer protests: several of the accounts participating in the vote are new or inexperienced editors or accounts that have only been active on deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But not a single source provides her coverage without mainly talking about her arrest. You need to show multiple reliable sources which provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest. I know that has not happened, that's why you need to read WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so the significant coverage of Ravi's past activism and biographical information does appear to contribute to her notability, even when the sources also discuss her recent arrest and/or incarceration. In addition, there are sources, such as British Vogue and The Guardian, at minimum per WP:BASIC, that contributed to her notability before her arrest, because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Vogue only provides her quote and same with Guardian, prior to her arrest. So yes it still fails WP:GNG given this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The article was created well before her arrest, including citing The Guardian, which is an internationally renowned newspaper, well before her arrest. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The Government of India's Delhi Police has made her notable. Here's an article in The New York Times. I would have created the page myself. It's great to see such a well-referenced page. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This article existed before the single event being complained of, so not only should WP:BLP1E be considered, but also the notability of Disha Ravi prior to arrest. In any event WP:BLP1E has three conditions that must be met. The third is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. For this to be NOT met the event must be significant AND the individual's role must be substantial AND well documented. Given the depth of coverage of the arrest, and that Disha Ravi's role in that arrest was central and the arrest is well documented, I contend that the third condition is not met and so WP:BLP1E is not met, and so the article should not be deleted. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Created as a puff piece with zero reliable sources providing her significant coverage. Having an article on Wikipedia is no indication of notability, otherwise there would be no process called "AfD". Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Puff piece is defined as Puff piece is an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery: an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary. What you linked to was a stub. Please don't confuse with terminology. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 05:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article before her arrest read like a puff piece. The problem is with your poor comprehension skills. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I sense you are getting upset as you talked about my reading comprehension, The problem is with your poor comprehension skills, instead of pointing out the specific sentences in that stub that amounted to puffery as you claimed. Vikram Vincent 05:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you missed ''Disha A Ravi is a youth climate activist from Bangalore, India.[1 She focuses on bringing voice to communities in need..."? Shankargb (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The article was created before her arrest November 12th 2020. Ample references even then to prove she is notable.  Now even more coverage of her.   D r e a m Focus  21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Sadads and Bishonen, and Beccanyr; the sources provided by Beccanyr are substantive, and discuss more than just the arrest. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The page was under the radar when it was created, does she have notability? The page creator is an admin, they have voted here without declaring that they created the page, that may not be a "rule" but imo good manners I suppose. Did the article pass the exacting standards that Wikipedia requires? I checked one source, the Thomson Reuters one. An opinion piece in which the subject is one amongst the many. The article as it stood then smacks of WP:NOTADVOCACY and ought not to have existed. Is there objectivity in how Wikipedia chooses its subjects? My vote is to impart it. Looking at it today the subject is not notable except for her arrest. Basis of my vote is wp:notnews wp:event and wp:1E Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:From the first version you linked, the Vogue focuses on four climate change activists of colour and Disha is one. Citizen matters is a community reporting website which focuses on interviewing Ravi. This establishes basic notability. What it also establishes is that the subject is not a product of the farmer protests as being claimed. Vikram Vincent 04:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Ravi is a notable person recieving considerable media attention, and ought to remain on Wikipedia. Even if she were not notable beyond her arrest, the coverage from BBC and other international news warrants at least a page covering that. Audrey (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has 41 references and clear independent media coverage. She was notable in her hometown of Bangalore before being arrested. It would be a tragedy for Wikipedia if this was deleted for arbitrary notability reasons. Narayansg (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is based on a person known for a single incident, hence must be deleted.--03:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.43.76 (talk)
 * Keep - I find the keep arguments persuasive. Sourcing from the arrest is plentiful and in depth, and sufficient sourcing precedes the arrest to get over 1E. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 05:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the essay WP:NOT1E is in my view correct: "If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply." The previous coverage is enough. In addition, I am not convinced that Ravi meets BLP1E criterion 2, which asks whether she "otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." It seems clear that she is far from low-profile and that she likely will, to the contrary, receive substantial attention in Indian public discourse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Extraordinary Writ. The argument that she was one of 26 arrested doesn't hold, as the media was giving her specific attention. The pre-arrest covering is small, but probably sufficient (f.i. 1/4 of a Vogue article). She doesn't seem she meets BLP1E criterion 2 either, 'likely to remain low-profile' after her arrest. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This article needs to be deleted since the subject is not someone notable enough to deserve an article. Also, the article seems to be highly biased and has quoted many far-left news sources. It fails to depict a neutral and complete picture of the issue, which is still ongoing at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaindivij21 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * — Jaindivij21 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Per others. Besides, I'm worried this will become a political case. Modi supporters will be likely to support deletion because that would help draw attention away from it. Of course, the opposite is also true - those supporting the protests will want to keep it. But we can always delete the page when the dust settles down and she doesn't appear to be that notable after all. In case of doubt, don't delete. Steinbach (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Also as per others in support so I will not repeat. This article predates arrest and has numerous valid references. I also believe it would be a tragedy for Wikipedia, a project that supposedly is to cover the sum of knowledge. This individual should be documented here. Smallison (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Having an article on wikipedia is not an indication of notability. You need to show multiple reliable sources that provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest. Shankargb (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily surpasses WP:GNG.  Well sourced article.  WP:Not censored.  She has become internationally well known, and the coverage is world wide.   Calling the page "propoganda" is a red herring and poisoning the well argument without any basis.  Wikipedia does not make up the positions; and we rely on WP:RS.  WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth.  And such arguments are just WP:I don't like it content disputes, that are not a reason to delete. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This article of Disha Ravi should be deleted. She is not an important person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.145 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:Not censored. Article is well sourced and created before any sort of arrests. Albertaont (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is censoring anything but discussing the notability of the subject that is a mere case of WP:BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. She is known for singular event only. Hence delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.189.98 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It's too obvious that supporters of the Indian regime (and also climate change deniers) want to get her left out. Miss Ravi had already been portrayed in The Guardian and in The Vogue in 2020, besides she is the founder of the Indian offshoot of Fridays for Future in March 2019 . She may not be the most important person in the world, but still relevant enough to have a Wikipedia site been created for her. 178.191.247.76 (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Portrayal in Guardian and Vogue in not a pre requisite of having a page on wiki. She is known only after her arrest by Indian Police in involvement in Anti India activities & she is not notable elsewhere, hence page may be deleted . read essay WP:BIO & WP:NOTNOTABLE. 14.139.114.211 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This article need not be deleted. The person concerned has be in international news for past few weeks, and as an activist she has been standing against establishment. She has been searched the most in last two days in India in Google. Removal of this article is not necessary. But the method in which article is written is not of Wikipedia standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.144.69 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin: Re the new accounts and IPs above, it may be worth considering that there's a call on Twitter to disrupt this AfD. (Thank you for the alert at WP:RFPP, User:Vincentvikram). Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep Plenty of strong WP:RS coverage, goes beyond WP:BLP1E. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a very clear case of failing BLP1E.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Judging from the numerous well-reasoned keep arguments, it is far from "very clear" that the article fails BLP1E. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Although it's not, anyone making WP:BLP1E argument also need to be aware what BLP1E is not WP:NOTBLP1E. Wide interest in this discussion either for or against does strongly hint that the subject is notable. Why is that?....something we need to ponder on. RationalPuff (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading WP:NOTBLP1E we come across, The major moving part in BLP1E regards low-profile individuals; a low profile by choice (especially someone who actively avoids attention) is generally considered an argument in favour of the deletion of borderline articles. WP:BLP1E is about a very narrow criteria as mentioned and hypothetically, even if the subject wants to remain low profile after this in order to fit within BLP1E, practically they won't be able to. Having said that, following are the reasons why the subject won't fall within BLP1E: 1. The case is high profile and will remain in the media for a while. An exclusive Time magazine has covered the issue which means worldwide attention; 2. Social media groups are having a field day in trying to project the image of the subject using trending hash tags. You can find public calls to disrupt this AfD and the page; 3. The page of the subject received 128,153 views in under 5 days with 54 authors and 337 edits(as of this moment) which is a good indicator, even if not per Wiki criteria, for notability. Vikram 17:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, can't seem to find anything else to establish notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep — I understand how this looks like NOTNEWS & BLP1E but there are definitely an abundance of reliable sources for this to satisfy WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of the position any of us take on this page, if (and it is a big if), Disha Ravi is found guilty of conspiracy for editing a document on google docs, then we all (every wikipedia editor) will potentially be guilty of conspiring to peddle second hand knowledge and for every action taken on the basis of that knowledge. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS and Aman Kumar Goel's comment. Subject does not seem notable enough for an encyclopedic article. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhav afro &#x202F;&#128172; 23:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Aman Kumar Goel's comment convinces me that the subject is not notable enough for an article. Subject is only came in knowledge after recent event. In fact, if you read the article, 95% of the article is about the recent event. So, delete. Aniruddh 02:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As of 18:18 on 19 Feb 2020 the article is 2532 words long. Words 19 to 106 and words 658 to 2532 are about her arrest. That is 1963 of 2532 words (78%) are about her arrest. However in the remaining 569 words are backed up by 19 references. So if you removed all of the words about her arrest, there would still be a well referenced article that meets WP:BASIC. This is not a case of WP:BLP1E. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Now in a Google knowledge panel but only 11 thousand page views yesterday. Strange this is language linked to a Spanish article but not any Indian languages. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Significant coverage from plenty of WP:RS. The above links by significantly reports about her climate activism and her role in protests which makes it clear that it's not WP:BLP1E. Also, WP:BIO1E states, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate., so it easily passes the notability test. SUN EYE 1  17:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment And per WP:NOTNEWS, which states, "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event," those sources, and many others in the article, including the recently-added report from Reuters, which states, "Ravi’s arrest has kicked off a fire storm of criticism against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for using heavy-handed tactics to counter the farmers’ agitation," show that the news coverage goes far beyond the context of a single event, includes her past activism and her role in protests, and her significant impact on the ongoing protests. BBC News, The New York Times, The Telegraph (UK) and TIME magazine have also reported on the broader context of Ravi's arrest. Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC) NBC News describes Ravi as a "well-known figure in the country’s growing environmental movement" and also reports Ravi "has emerged as a symbol of the Indian government’s crackdown on dissent" and her arrest has "renewed concerns of an authoritarian backlash to the farmers’ protests that have rocked the country." Beccaynr (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC) (comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)) WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS both appear to support a standalone article for Ravi, due to the sources discussed here and the many other sources included in the article that further demonstrate her substantial and well-documented role as an activist and in this recent event. Beccaynr (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, in recent times there has been significant coverage on this topic, and topic became Notable. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a one sided narrative of a person to derail the investigations of serious charges. Let the courts decide hence this page should be deleted ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.142.115.44 (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It has to be deleted this is propoganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:D0B:26C4:8D09:8D8E:9B15:6AB1 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of references from WP:RS/P that are all WP:SIGCOV pieces on her as sole subject: E.g. The Guardian, NBC, BBC.  I could probably list off much of the WP:RS/P list who have done piece on her (e.g. even financial-focused RS like Fortune).  Unambigious pass of WP:GNG.  Britishfinance (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strongest Ever Keep Absolutely this article is notable, don't know how some people reacts like stupid and questioning on its notability. The World Is Standing With Disha Ravi.  P ok a i 


 * Keep She is notable and she has been well known before her arrest, the topic important. April 2020 ‘’’’ User:Baronlx01 — Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. What seems to be odd is that wiki contributors had no problem with the wiki page before her arrest and imprisonment for conspiracy and sedition against the Indian Government. The arguments seem to be that now she has been arrested the page created about her before her arrest needs to be deleted. That because a single arrest does not warrant a wiki page. So my question are those grounds for removal of a wiki page. If there is a wiki page about an activist and the government in their country arrests and imprisons them does that according to wiki contributors provide sufficient reason to remove their page obviously not to back down to an authoritarian regime or support a friendly democratic power but because being arrested and having that in the news would make the page more popular than it should be. Is that your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.25.234 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Back in October, before the page was created and four months before she was arrested, she was one of half a dozen "young activists" from around the world being sought out by the BBC for comment on safely protesting during a pandemic. Since then, we've had more than enough significant coverage to establish notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2021 (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.