Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiran Bir Sethi


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Kiran Bir Sethi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to be a resume Sikandaramla (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. A google news search provides quite a few sources showing notability, such as this (which is also referenced in the article), this, this (in Spanish), this, and this. And that's just on the first page. It continues: this and this, for example. Clearly notable.  The article does have a WP:POV issue, and I've tagged it as such.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Pure promotionalism. A typical PR job that has no place in an encycopedia. "POV issue" is a gross understateement. Over personal, over-enthusiastic, full of puffery. Possible G11 speedy, actually. The article on her organization Design for Change, is so outrageously promotional that I have nominated for speedy deletion. If either she or it is notable, the article needs to be started over as a real encycopedia article. Borderline notability + promotionalism is cause for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   13:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried cutting some of the most blatantly promotional of the language in the article, but it doesn't mitigate the fact that to pass WP:GNG we need sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and provide nontrivial coverage. Instead all but the twenty19 source look non-independent, and that one looks of dubious reliability. The sources clearly exist (as onel5969's results show) but I think the article still needs a complete rewrite to be based on those sources and eliminate the promotional ones now in use, per WP:TNT. I would be willing to change my mind if such a rewrite happens. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now - I'm not usually comfortable with academics but I suppose the consensus seems to be no...and my searches found nothing such as this, this, this and this. SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep on her fellowships alone and her work honored by the Rockefeller Foundation, there are RS sources supporting everything. I don't see anything promotional now, since David Eppstein went through the article. Looks like an informative neutral article to me. -- 009o9 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * are you aware that though you refer to DE, he came to the opposite conclusion?  DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment  It is possible that she is notable, but if so, the article still needs to be deleted and started over. As said, the promotionalism is too pervasive. I also tried to see if a little rewriting would help, and failed also.  Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahem, Dave, you voted delete above so are you combining your comments to one? SwisterTwister   talk  02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed, thanks.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 31 August 2015 (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.