Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heenal Raichura


 * 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   keep. Walls of text are rarely useful, and this AfD is no exception. If one thing is clear, it is that there is no consensus here to delete the article. Consensus is that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, and that the article does not violate WP:NOT or WP:BLP1E. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Heenal Raichura

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable biographical article. Her achievement is undoubtedly unusual, but apart from gaining medical registration at the age of 22 she doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy. Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. And they aren't all from the same date, so I don't think this is a BLP 1-E either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether or not she has done anything noteworthy is immaterial - the fact that she has achieved substantial coverage in reliable sources passes notability guidelines, whether or not we think this coverage should have been given. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Regarding the comment by ChildofMidnight, the coverage dates from 11 July 2008, 12 July 2008, 18 July 2008, 1 September 2008, 24 September 2008, 29 September 2008, month of November 2008, and 2008 (no specific date), (Rugby Observer 21 July 2009 is about somebody else). The claim that the media coverage is not all of the same date is therefore rather thin. The coverage is of virtually all the same date: three articles from July 2008, three from September 2008, one from November, and another from some other time in 2008, so all the coverage dates from a period of less than five months. It seems that the story was reported in a couple of national newspapers in the summer and then revived on the internet a few times. For information, Wikipedia guidelines advise against using jargon such as 'BLP 1-E', which here does not even include a link to the relevant document, as it tends to alienate people who are not active enough on Wikipedia to have learned all the abbreviations and technical terms.
 * Regarding both comments, surely media coverage is not in itself a sufficient criterion for notability. She got media coverage for a few months in 2008 because she had achieved the unusual feat of attaining medical registration at the age of 22. Of course there was bound to be some media interest, especially, it seems, in the Indian online media. There is likewise an annual flurry of media reports when a sixth-former beats the existing record with a dozen A-levels. Unusual though this person is, her achievement is of no lasting importance; it's a mere curiosity. Now, if you take somebody like Jordan (Katie Price), what she has achieved is, most people would probably agree, of absolutely no importance compared to the work of a junior doctor, but the reason she is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article is because she is an important part of our culture: even those of us who wish that she weren't an important part of our culture acknowledge that she is when we use her as the stock example of somebody who is undeservedly famous.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Media coverage is precisely the method used to assess articles for notability on Wikipedia. There are certain cases where people can be presumed notable without evidence of media coverage, and certain cases where Wikipedia policies are clearer about what media coverage does and doesn't count, but you never ever delete an article than demonstrates notability through media coverage just because someone deems the coverage unimportant. (And Jordan meets notability through media coverage the same as everyone else.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated than that:
 * Wikipedia articles should not be news reports. 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.'
 * Articles about people notable only for one event. 'Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.'
 * Additional criteria. 'The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.'
 * Dr Raichura does not enjoy 'enduring notability'. She was newsworthy for a brief while but she is now non-notable. She was merely in the news, which does not imply that she should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. She was covered only in the context of a single event, namely, her graduation as a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery of the University of London. She has remained, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and generally this means that we should avoid having an article about her. Her contribution to medicine is neither 'widely recognized' nor 'part of the enduring historical record'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read on in WP:NOTNEWS, it says "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." None of that sensibly applies to this case. WP:ANYBIO provides additional means that a person can attain notability instead of media coverage, and was never meant as an additional hurdle to clear. WP:BLP1E is covered in more detail at WP:BIO1E and considers whether an article should be written about the person, the event, or both. In this case, the person and the event are the same thing so it doesn't matter. Either this media coverage is enough to pass the notability threshold or it isn't. Cherry-picking sentences from policies to get the deletion outcome you want isn't the way to go about this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't cherry-pick to justify the result I wanted; I simply quoted the sentences that seemed to be relevant. It seems to me that for a subject to be notable it needs more than news coverage. It needs to demonstrate that the subject has a constantly high profile and has achieved enduring importance.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may seem that way to you, but Notability is clear that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" makes the subject notable, and Reliable sources is clear that news coverage is admissible as a reliable source. There is no policy or guideline that requires articles to be about people with high profiles and enduring importance. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is what Notability actually says:

A topic is presumed [emphasis added] to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below.

 General notability guideline 

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed [emphasis added] to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.


 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. [Footnote:] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories [emphasis added] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
 * I therefore agree that Dr Raichura is to be presumed notable, just as the defendant in court is presumed to be innocent. But just as the defendant may on examination of the evidence be found guilty, so Dr Raichura may yet be found non-notable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will concede that if you interpret Wikiepdia's policies from scratch, interpret all of the "may"s, "might"s, "presumed" and "minor"s the way you want, and take no notice of existing common practice, it is possible to rule just about any article non-notable if you think Wikipedia shouldn't be interested in this sort of thing. However, deletion discussions do take into account common practice, and common practice is that when the level of media coverage makes a person the subject of national news stories (as opposed to just an incidental mention, which was the idea of WP:NOTNEWS), that person gets an article on Wikipedia unless the notable information would be better placed in another article. There may be a case for merging this article and others into something like Youngest doctor in the United Kingdom, but once you start making arbitrary decisions on what is "noteworthy", deletion policy will quickly descend into WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Let it be clear to everyone that inclusion of any article in Wikipedia does not confer notability or is a seal of notability nor is the only source of recognisation of achievement of a person. Deletion of Dr. Raichura's article would in no way affect her notabilitiy as she has thousands of websites on the internet and is well known internationally.

And the peoople, who have been editing and contemplating deletion of her article, understand that her notability started at the age of 9, when she became the first ever youngest student to enter a secondary school and also achieved a score of 170 in the MENSA tests. Further, she again became the youngest person to join a well known sixth form college at the age of 14 against tough competition for an entry, not overlooking the fact,she has been the youngest person in the country to start medical course at the age 0f 16,in a well known university and again, against very tough competiton for a place.

The mention of interest by Indian media (a red herring?) is unjustified as the news originated from the English media,and hence,it seems to used as a ruse!

Does this mean that the media in other countries are any inferior? And what proof does the writer has that it is ONLY ONLINE MEDIA that carried this news? Has he checked all the newspapers, magazines, tv and radio stations in the world to find out whether they carried this news?

Someone even has inserted a sentence from Rugby Observer 21 July 2009, which has no relevance to this article as it is there,without any evidence of any notability, just to show Dr. Raichura's achievement as insignificant.

Or are these cases of sour grapes?

In this connection, I refer to the "Discussion" page where every effort was made to have Dr.Raichura's article removed and unsubstantiated claims were made, which were challenged, but still the contents of the article were regularly diluted. - Reporter691 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter691 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with this contribution. I'll take them in the order in which they occur:


 * 'her notability started at the age of 9, when she became the first ever youngest student to enter a secondary school'. This doesn't make sense; it cannot even be explained by the fact that the contributor is presumably not a native English speaker. Nobody can ever be 'the first ever [insert superlative] person to do x', except, if the person can be identified, the first person ever to do x at all. She wasn't the first ever youngest person to go to secondary school; she must, unless she was the first person to go to secondary school (which she obviously wasn't), simply have broken the record established by whoever was the previous youngest person to go to secondary school. Furthermore, going to secondary school aged 10 is really very common; most British people will, I suspect, know at least one person who went to secondary school aged 10. So, to go to secondary school aged 9 is, admittedly, highly unusual, but it isn't notable, especially in these days when parents are increasingly putting their children in for GCSEs and A-levels at ever younger ages (starting at 5 or 6 - and no, these people are not notable either!).
 * Many of her achievements are not in fact at all remarkable; she just achieved them at a younger age than most people. It is therefore irrelevant to point out that she attended a prestigious university that was hard to get into. I went to Oxford; it doesn't make me notable.
 * And no, you are erroneously attributing some significance to my mentioning the fact that much of the coverage was in Indian online media sources: I was merely stating a fact; there is nothing inferior about Indian sources, although there is, arguably, something inferior about online sources as they are more easily and cheaply produced and more readily provide a record of non-notable news items. I was merely pointing out that her story was taken up by the Indian online media some months after it enjoyed brief interest in the UK print media.
 * The quotation from the Rugby Observer is in fact highly pertinent. A good article does not just rehearse the facts in the manner of a boring antiquarian; it ought to make some attempt to show how the facts pertain to themes of real interest. The person who made that contribution is therefore showing that Dr Raichura's case fits into a pattern of a small number of students taking an accelerated route into higher education and into the medical profession in particular. In fact, that contribution is perhaps the only thing about the article that raises it from the level of dull recitation of non-notable biographical facts to a worthwhile comment on the enduring historical record.
 * No sour grapes on my part, but I can't speak for anyone else.
 * This, Ruth Lawrence, is an example of a really worthwhile article about somebody who achieved academic success at an early age. By the age of 17 Ruth Lawrence had become a DPhil of the University of Oxford. That is to say that at the same age at which Dr Raichura was in her first or second year reading medicine Dr Lawrence had already submitted a thesis which represented a significant and substantial contribution to knowledge in the field of mathematics. Now, when she is younger than 40, she is an associate professor at one of the world's leading universities. More importantly, she has continued to make a contribution to the sum of human knowledge, even giving her name to the Lawrence–Krammer representation. There is no evidence that Dr Raichura has made a comparable impact on the enduring historical record. I submit that she is not notable.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Important note on Reporter691 The account Reporter691 (Reporter691 • talk • contribs) appears to exist solely for the purpose of making contributions connected with Heenal Raichura.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's normal to tag such comments using . Whilst users who have made little or no contributions outside the topic under discussion are traditionally given less weight when counting up to !votes to keep and deleted, the arguments they make are still equally valid to those of long-standing users. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit suspicious about the whole article in terms of the extent to which it seems to have been edited by single-purpose accounts (SPAs), or almost-SPAs. Out of a total of 135 edits 66 have been made by a single editor, the SPA Reporter691. The article was started by Michelegiorgi85, a user with only eight contributions (Special:Contributions/Michelegiorgi85), the Heenal Raichura contributions being the first after a break of nearly three years and indeed the last contributions that editor ever made. An earlier contribution was to start the article Graduate Australian Medical School Admissions Test, which mentions St George's, University of London, where Dr Raichura studied. Another early contributor was Wellwisher12, whose only contributions are to Heenal Raichura, then Madhurdixit83, who has made just one contribution to Wikipedia ever. Another contributor was J4mes_bond25, who has edited Wikipedia three times - twice on Heenal Raichura, once on the Indian Premier League. Then Reporter691 begins editing, contributing nothing but information about Dr Raichura. Most of the work on the article, therefore, has been undertaken by people who clearly have no interest, or at best very little interest, in Wikipedia except as far as it gives them an opportunity to make contributions relating to Heenal Raichura. Whilst this is not in itself an argument for deletion it does show that contributions are being made by people (or perhaps even sockpuppets of the same person) whose only interest is in the subject of this article. That does make one suspect that the article only exists because somebody (or a group of people) wanted to promote information about Dr Raichura.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the people who created the article have a hidden agenda to promote an individual is not important. You can remove material because it's shown to be promotional in violation of WP:NPOV. You can't remove material simply because you think the author intended it to be promotional. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments of Oxonian2006 are self defeating. He has twisted every word I had written and has generalised the words “first ever” in the context he wants to portray. The words “first ever” were meant that there is no record that shows that what Dr. Raichura had achieved, had been achieved by anyone else in UK in the past, under the NORMAL UK educational system. His claim that it is common for UK children to go to a UK secondary school, aged 10, is untrue. This is news to everyone, as the common admission age is 11 and over! He is further unable to provide any specific example of anyone else having achieved the educational successes of Dr. Raichura at the ages of 9, 14 and again anyone having become a medical student in UK at the age of 16.

I suggest that he reads Wikipedia’s “Education in England” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_England).

Here we are discussing about achievement of a person in the medical field and hence, inclusion of someone having achieved in any other field, is not only irrelevant but is misleading and mischievous. He has obviously not mentioned that the DPhil course in only mathematics at Oxford University is only for 10-12 MONTHS duration, compared to SIX YEARS Dr. Raichura spent to get her MBBS and BSc. So why this ridiculous comparison?

To get a place in Oxford may be an achievement for privileged, privately educated, well pampered and coached students, who get a well paid, cushy job through old boy network, but to become a notable person amongst hundreds of thousands of graduates, one has to have an outstanding achievement in the chosen field, which obviously the contributor, according to his own confession, does not have.

As regards to the comment “dull recitation of non-notable biographical facts”, aren’t all the biographies dull recitations except to those who are interested in it?

And if a particular biography is not interesting to this contributor (or does not fit within his own criteria of notables), does it mean that others should be prevented from reading those articles?

He can close his eyes or read some other biographies which are of interest to him. Nobody is forcing him to read what he does not like!

Then why this waste of time on his part on an article which he does not like and hence, not important to him, but he still insists on its deletion so others would not read it? Isn’t this a dog in the manger attitude? Or are we going to be dictated by such people as what we are allowed to read or not?

Coming on to the detailed investigative work on other contributors to this article, he portrays this article as if this must be the “biggest conspiracy of the century in the world” involving the parents, relations, friends, teachers, lecturers, professors, schools, a college and a university and somebody (or a group of people) having made the international media (including editors and publishers of the British High Commission magazine )  fools to give prominence to achievements of Dr. Raichura.

Surprisingly, if this theory is correct, then why the other “suspect contributors” he mentions are not on this present discussion board?

And Oxonian has conveniently not mentioned one of the ex St. George student contributor in the previous Discussion page, who held similar view to his? Or can we take a page from his book and assume that there is conspiracy between the two?

Isn’t it pathetic to even think that those who do not contribute regularly to different topics in the Wikipedia have hidden agenda or not capable? No one is expected to be regular contributor to make a comment or submit an article for Wikipedia. How shallow minded a graduate from Oxford can be? “No sour grapes on my part, but I can't speak for anyone else.”

Easily said, but following comments show his true colours. - “contributor is presumably not a native English speaker”;

- “because she is an important part of OUR CULTURE (I did not know that to be a notable, one had to belong a particular culture)”;

- “in the Indian online media”; “nothing inferior about Indian sources, although there is, arguably, something inferior about online sources as they are more easily and cheaply produced and more readily provide a record of non-notable news items (LOL = Unfortunately, this online source also includes international newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations, including UK and USA).

I strongly recommend to him to do an online search of – PATRIOTIC SPEECH NAMASTEY LONDON - and find appropriate website which would give answers to all his questions.

Such negative contributors exist in every community, including Indians, and we will never understand their destructive nature nor accept when they are wrong! Or maybe such people have nothing better to do in life except to criticise people who do better than them! And can’t get on with their life!

'''But the question still remain - why is this particular contributor, and the ONLY ONE, out of thousands who might have read this article, so keen to have it deleted? Would deletion from Wikipedia make any difference to the facts that already exist or to Dr. Raichura personally? (No response from Oxonian' to this question)'' Or have such people found this “legalised” way of vandalizing articles which are not palatable to them or does not fit in their narrow minded criteria?

Whilst on the subject of vandalism, it is a real shame that there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on religious persons of different cultures, constantly edited by “western culture” contributors who have no knowledge of the subject or culture, and then those articles are left vandalised and languishing. - Reporter 691 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.126.69 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability is fully established. I agree with 's comments about this not violating WP:NOTNEWS. Cunard (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per 's comments above. Plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. DES (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to meet WP:GNG and is a very well-sourced BLP -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable BLP. See this page, passim, for my arguments.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The only justification the proposer (Oxonian) for deletion of article has given is that he simply thinks that Wikipedia is a better place if it isn't littered with non-notable articles. And it is quite obvious that over last 18 months, he is the only one, out of thousands of readers of Wikipedia who would have read this article, who thinks that this is non-notable article!!! - Reporter 691

Reply to Reporter 691

I shall attempt to reply briefly to some of Reporter 691's comments:

1. To put it succinctly, what Reporter 691 presumably meant was 'the youngest person ever', which is entirely different from 'the first ever youngest'. For one thing, it actually makes sense. 'Mr Jones was the first ever richest banker' makes sense only when Mr Jones was also the first ever banker. If Mr Jones was the second or later person ever to be a banker there will always have been somebody else who was the first ever richest. If Mr Jones is simply the richest banker until somebody else supersedes him then, 'Mr Jones is the richest banker ever'.

2. It is perfectly true that it is common for British children to begin secondary school aged 10. 'Common' does not necessarily mean 'normal' or 'usual', simply 'Of ordinary occurrence and quality' (OED). I can think of at least four people known to me personally who began secondary school aged 10, three of whom began university aged 17. All I was saying was that beginning secondary school aged 10 is in no way remarkable. To begin aged 9 is, of course, highly unusual, but it is hardly a feat establishing notability. I do not think that becoming a medical student at the age of 16 is remotely noteworthy in terms of the notability standards of an encyclopedia.

3. It is not misleading or mischievous to mention a person who excelled at a very early age in a different field. It is simply making the point that there are people who made very significant achievements in an academic field at an even earlier age. I am again uncertain of what the writer means: what is meant by, 'the DPhil course in only mathematics'? I think that taken at face value it means, 'the DPhil course in mathematics alone, as opposed to the DPhil course in mathematics combined with another subject'. By some stretch of interpretation it could mean that whereas the DPhil course in all other subjects is of more than 12 months' duration the DPhil course in mathematics alone is of 10-12 months' duration. Or does the writer aim to demean mathematics as a discipline contrasted with medicine? Anyway, the writer clearly has no understanding of the British higher education system, and certainly not of Oxford. The DPhil is awarded to students only after registration for a minimum of six terms, including time spent registered for the MSc or as a probationer research student. That would make it just about possible for the DPhil itself to last three terms. However, it is virtually unheard of for the DPhil to take less than three years and in many cases it takes four years or longer. Ruther Lawrence spent two years obtaining her BA in maths, followed by a year taking the Final Honour School in physics, and then three years studying for a DPhil, making a total of six years' studying.

4. Reporter 691 clearly has a problem with Oxford. Why, I do not know. I was not 'privileged, privately educated, well pampered and coached' and nor do I have 'a well paid, cushy job through old boy network'. My father was a warehouseman, my mother a cleaner; I went to a state-funded comprehensive school; I grew up in a flat over a shop with no heating, sharing a room with my sibling of the opposite sex until I was 18; I had no coaching at all to get into Oxford. I am now writing my PhD thesis while teaching part-time - both adult learners and pupils at an inner-city comprehensive school. It isn't cushy and I certainly didn't get where I am through any 'old boys network' (if such a thing even exists). Dr Raichura has not 'become a notable person amongst hundreds of thousands of graduates'; she is just unusual.

5. Biographies are not necessarily dull recitations of facts. The best biographies go beyond the collation of facts about a person and aspire to the condition of literature, history, psychology, etc.

6. I simply think that Wikipedia is a better place if it isn't littered with non-notable articles.

7. As for this: 'Isn’t it pathetic to even think that those who do not contribute regularly to different topics in the Wikipedia have hidden agenda or not capable? No one is expected to be regular contributor to make a comment or submit an article for Wikipedia. How shallow minded a graduate from Oxford can be?' No, nobody is required to be a frequent contributor to lots of different articles, but those who operate single-purpose accounts are generally viewed with suspicion. It does make it look as though they are here to promote a particular cause rather than to help compile an encyclopedia.

8. There is nothing wrong with not being a native English speaker; I was just explaining why Reporter 691 may not always write as clearly as an Oxford logic tutor would like!

9. 'our culture' was not supposed to refer to any particular culture. I suppose I meant, first, the culture of all people, secondly, the culture of Wikipedia readers, and thirdly, the culture of Britain and anywhere else where Jordan is well known.

10. There is a difference between sources that originate online and sources that are online versions of print media. The point about online media is fair. They are far more susceptible to reporting non-notable events. --Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO OXONIAN:

Having started debate on the deletion subject of his liking, I do not think Oxonian will ever change his view point and it would be utter waste of time to convince him.

One of his argument is that he simply thinks that Wikipedia is a better place if it isn't littered with non-notable articles.

Isn't this argument similar to the one where a shopper, who goes into a supermarket, and find some products not to his liking, and asks the supermarket manager to remove them from the store?

If he is so keen to improve Wikipedia, he should be bear in mind my suggestion that he reads those vandalised and languising articles, which need attention from people who are willing to do indepth search, and devote his time for constructive and not destructive work.

- Reporter691
 * Why does Reporter691 insist on making these ridiculous responses to anything I say? The analogy with a supermarket is completely wrong. A supermarket exists to make money, and if it achieves that by selling things I don't like there's no reason why I should ask the manager of the supermarket to stop selling them. An encyclopedia, however, needs to have criteria defining what is and what is not included in its scope. Those criteria have to be enforced. In my opinion Heenal Raichura is not a notable person; she is just a person who was briefly newsworthy for a trivial reason.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general tip to both of you, writing essays in AfDs rarely changes anyone's mind. It's fine for scoring points off each other, but that's not really what Wikipedia's for, and certainly not on an AfD page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no desire to begin writing essays on this page; it was necessary to do so only because Reporter691 was writing things that were either poorly reasoned or simply untrue.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (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.