Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kruttika Susarla


 * 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. GNG shown to be met, although consensus states that many current citations should be removed as unencyclopedic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Kruttika Susarla

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable person filled with the references that do not qualify for a Wikipedia article. do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This article reads like a resume and should be cleaned if its not deleted.  YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 03:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't signifcant enough and I couldn't find enough notability to meet guidelines. Sources in the article are poor too. Tautomers (T C) 04:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete News coverage is not significant enough, fails GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm the creator of the page so I'll refrain from a !vote. I had created this page quite some time ago as part of the Women in Red project along with a dozen others so I don't particularly remember this person. That said I'd still like to present an arguement for keeping this article, first of all one should take note that with regards to biographies, WP:BASIC states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The current article itself has multiple references from independent reliable secondary sources which provide non-trivial coverage to her. The Indian Express article is entirely about her and her work, the FII English 2017 article is entirely about her and one of her works, the FII English 2018 article has a paragraph on her, the Verve 2018 article has a paragraph on her as well, the Verve 2017 article is an interview but provides an independent introductory paragraph on her and Platform magazine has a feature piece on her.  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 05:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Tayi Arajakate, and the article could be further developed with other sources that are available, e.g. Design Dialogue with Kruttika Susarla (PrintWeek, 2019, includes education/career background), Women power, rebranded (Deccan Chronicle, 2017), 5 Women Illustrators From India Who Use the Power of Art to Shatter Taboos and Change Mindsets (The Better India, 2017), Four Indian artists to follow online (Bangalore Mirror, 2015), which all add further support to WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Am I missing something here? Many of the sources are literally about her. Why are so many people saying that the coverage is only trivial? Mlb96 (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Contrary to some of the Delete suggestions above, the subject does receive significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources as per the criteria for inclusion. That article can be expanded but AfD is not for article clean-up. -- A Rose Wolf  14:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I, too, am baffled by the delete !votes. Who could confuse two short, well-referenced paragraphs with a resume? pburka (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I think this article may be slightly WP:TOOSOON, I think the coverage is probably just substantive enough. I made some edits to make the article read less like a resume, although incorporating the sources above would help. Suriname0 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Verve - not independent of the subject NPOV. feminisminindia.com- a biography list of many artists on an Unreliable resource/website. platform-mag- self published biography.  welcometocup- paid list of non notable Graphic designers.  verve - again a list of non notable designers/artists.  Indianexpress - self published/paid article NPOV.  Deccan - self published not independently covered.  feminisminindia.com - again self published/paid article on a non reliable website. Thebetterindia - This can be consider but again this is a list of non notable artists.  Verve - again a paid article on Verve.  Caravanmagazine - Autobiography/Self published/Paid NPOV. Not a single resource that satisfies WP:GNG. I would also like to ping Praxidicae and HighKing who are experts to check references. GermanKity (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , What evidence do you have that this Indian Express piece is a self-published/paid piece? Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I tend to steer clear of WP:BIO, mainly for the reasons you've just run into. The standards of references deemed acceptable are a lot lower that WP:NCORP which is the only guideline that explicitly requires "Independent Content" (as per the definition in WP:ORGIND). While all guidelines, even GNG, requires "Independent of the subject", this is not correctly or properly defined. IMHO it is simply not worth the effort to argue this point, because even though the BIO guideline says that references must be "Independent of the subject", that statement in turn simply links to WP:IS which *only* states that the *publisher* should be independent of the subject. Nothing about content. The very large hole that leaves behind is that a publisher (who is not connected to the subject) may publish word-for-word an interview/essay/self-promoting-bio of the subject and it somehow meets the BIO guidelines. It's rubbish and lowers the quality of articles but it requires a change to the guidelines rather than a debate at each AfD.  HighKing++ 15:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Multi-year RS available, passes the GNG.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are a lot of inappropriate sources which lack independence which should be removed (such as Verve, FII English, Platform, The Better India) However, there are also high quality references (The Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, The Caravan in the article; and some of those listed by others here at the AFD) which do count as RS and show the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the improvements and rationale provided by Tayi Arajakate, there are enough references and coverages about Kruttika Susarla. Passes WP:CREATIVE. Chirota (talk) 05:23, 8 July 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.