Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaya Vaidhyanathan (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Jaya Vaidhyanathan
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Previously soft deleted at AfD but I still don’t see that the subject is notable. She has an impressive career but Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and a BLP can’t be based on various non notable awards, blogs and authored columns. Mccapra (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Finance,  and India. Mccapra (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has come up after un-deletion as soft delete. Moreover, it has completely changed the references and content from its previous version. There are references that claim the notability of topic. Newly added references are from reliable news article that are written independently. For me the article tone is not a resume. Passes WP:GNG. GM Nova (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The refs may be new but which of them are in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not meeting the criteria, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor Linkedin" Citations101 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep She is Notable and Passes WP:GNG, She is the winner of the Stevie Awards and hence passes WP:ANYBIO. She's contributing to Major websites of India, First Post, Forbes, TOI, Business Today, The Economic Times, Outlook Money, Business Line and many more websites. Look at these references   Mr Goldberg 16:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I can’t get 1 to load; 2 is just her profile on the PWC website and 3 is a press release about a pay-to-play award. This isn’t in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Genuinely perplexed here. Being on the Global Board of PWC is a big deal, and when I saw that did a search expecting to find lots of RS on her but it is very thin.  This article in The Times of India is on her, but aside from articles she writes herself, I can't find any other RS that gives her SIGCOV.   On the current RS presented, I can't see her making GNG here. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep- I Found this,   and she is a multiple winner of Stevie Awards ,  ,,  . Also a Fintech Woman Leader of the Year 2022 by Businessworld see [] it significant enough for her to pass notability.Epcc12345 (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The only one there that is a proper RS is the Times of India (which I also felt was an RS). The awards are not notable, and the others are trade discussions.  I was surprised that The Hindu etc, would not have interviewed her? Aszx5000 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable person who Passes WP:GNG, holding prominent roles with news coverage. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - aside from the TOI coverage, which is limited but does begin to establish a case for notability, the other sources are press releases, non-secondary, or trivial coverage. I'm unconvinced that Stevie Awards, which are pay-to-play, should be considered a viable case for WP:ANYBIO. Keep arguments thus far demonstrate a lack of understanding of the kind of coverage that contributes to notability. The case for notability here seems to be largely based on wishful thinking. signed,Rosguill talk 19:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * We are told that the subject is notable because she won a silver and a bronze Stevie Award. The worth of that award is expained in the first two sentences of our article on the subject:"The Stevie Awards are a set of fee-based business awards staged annually by Stevie Awards, Inc. Entrants pay to nominate themselves for awards and approximately 30-40% of entrants receive an award." Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Rosguill and Phil Bridger (very good find), and my own searches above. There is only the TOI RS that would qualify for GNG, but TOI is caveated in Wikipedia per WP:TOI as: "The publication is also known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage".  She is very promotional, and I can see that this article was written by an editor with a very unusual editing profile (very few edits but using proper referencing style etc), like a UPE-farm.  Maybe her self-promotion will get her enough RS for GNG in the future, but as it currently stands, there is not enough. Wikipedia doesn't need to be the main plank in her online notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any GNG coverage either. TOI is maybe. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments- This sources is significant enough for her to pass WP:GNG see and . Also found this interview of her aswel., .Epcc12345 (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought that The Nation, the first of the non-interview sources you provided, was reliable until I saw that the paragraphs about Vaidhyanathan were immediately followed by "Abuja doctor reveals a unique way to permanently cure weak erection, small and shameful manhood, and infertility issues without side effects within a short period. Click now to see!!" Do reliable sources carry adverts that are indistinguishable from the ridiculous spam that I receive in my inbox every day? As for your second source, WP:TOI has already been linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a paid company advert you highlighted, which is different from the original contents itself been discussed. The Nation (Nigeria) is a daily newspaper and is second-most-read newspaper in Nigeria.The media house is strongly a reliable sources.Epcc12345 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Being read by lots of people doesn't make a source reliable. In my country the highest circulation paid-for newspaper is The Sun, but it is certainly not a reliable source. You don't see ads for penis enlargement in sources like The Times, The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I found this, same contents from another reliable platforms Epcc12345 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It gets curiouser and curiouser, Again, The Tribune seems at first glance to be a reliable source, but I can't help wondering why the same content is attributed to "Our Reporter" in both The Nation and The Tribune although they do not seem to have common ownership. Do they share reporters? Something is just not right here. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that Wikipedia is the main plank in her notability, trying to tie the scraps/fragments of poor RS (as shown by Phil Bridger) together to be GNG. It should not be so. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I found her notable to satisfy WP:BIO1E.The news that I found can be considered as reliable sources. Links are-1,2. I think the Times of India and The Nation coverages are independent and in-depth enough to satisfy WP:BIO1E. Kinkordada (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What a dreary collection of abject promotional rubbish. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it's an interesting argument to cite "satisfies 1E" in favour of retention. Or at least a funny way to phrase it. The same content being published by two alleged newsorgs without attribution, also a little funny to cite in favour of retention. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 13 June 2023 (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.