Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoom Minawala


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Masoom Minawala

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Biography of an Indian entrepreneur who lacks non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:GNG. All references are from reliable sources and mentions were not trivial (For example: TED talk, CNN, HSBC etc.). Yes, article is still at an initial stage and can be expanded in future. There are lots of contents & references on web on the subject of the article. (Note for reviewer: I was the creator of this article) Nalbarian (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: The subject definitely fails WP:BIO, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, WP:GNG. All the mentions are trivial, and just inclusions in the some non-notable under 40 lists does not merit any inherent notability. Also giving TEDx talks has not mean anything for the purposes of notability., if an when reliable sources with non-trivial coverage comes up in the future, the article can be re-created then. The argument that the article can be expanded in the future is not accepted in AfD discussions here on WP as then every BLP can be argued on that lines. Roller26 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Has coverage in Vogue and also was a TEDx speaker. You don't just get invited to speak at TEDx, unless you are someone significant.Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Vogue coverage that you mention is simply a mention and a quote, no way qualifying as significant coverage. There are more than 3000 TEDx talks organized every year by a huge number of organizations, each having 6 to 10 speakers each. Being selected for a TEDx talk in no way confers notability. I know of an individual who has delivered more than 10 different TEDx talks, his bio was CSDed (quick deletion) on simple wiki, where the notability guidelines seems to be less stricter then here. Roller26 (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are looking at the overall picture here, then I feel she has significant coverage. Vogue mention is one item, TEDx is another item, CNN’s 20 under 40 is another notability factor and bunch more. We need to look at the overall picture, so I just simply pointed out 2 items that were the most notable. As you know Wiki rules indicate that a subject must have significant coverage and this is very subjective on the reviewer. This is why we are voting. I am not sure why you are so adamant to argue your view. You already voted, so leave it at that and let the overall votes decide the outcome! Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Current citations are sufficient to establish WP:GNG. Some people are just famous for being famous. If she's famous for her wedding (for example), then it is what is it, but WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS is established. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 20:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG and fails 1E. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Society figures can be notable enough, but it's a very high bar, and I see no evidence that the subject meets it. It has to be more than a minimal coverage that just meets the GNG, considering the general unreliability of sources in this area.  DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. She is WP:TOOSOON. -- The SandDoctor Talk 14:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete can't agree more with . -- KartikeyaS (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2020 (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.