Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Paul


 * 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. Although it is more leaning towards keep. Due to the low level of participation, I am closing this as "no consensus" since it has been relisted thrice already. No prejudice against a renomination. However, I would advice any future nominator to explain why they feel the sources listed on the article are not significant enough to avoid a similar situation. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 19:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Jessie Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article does not appear to be notable, and the article is written like an ad for them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article really isn't "overly" promotional, it just uses some business buzzwords, but more importantly I think there's enough coverage to establish notability: The Economic Times, Forbes and Business Standard seem reliable enough to me. Pishcal (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pishcal (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pishcal (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Keep The nominator either does understand the mainline news sources/references in India or on a AFD spree involving subjects from India. The article is well referenced and the subject is notable. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 23:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient coverage exists to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2017 (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.