Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namita Banka


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Namita Banka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promo overall tone, non notable L3X1 (distant write)  02:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

she is notable woman --Sidheeq (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cartier Women's Initiative Awards. There's little question that the article has a promotional tone.  The line about her company providing "environmentally friendly and sustainable solutions for sanitation" is an unattributed quote from one of the subject's interviews.  And most of the article is not about the subject, but about her company and what it sells (note the sections on the company's board and its clients).  But these problems can be fixed.  What is not fixable is the lack of notability.  The subject did receive the Cartier award in 2013, after which there appears to have been a brief spate of "media buzz" in late 2013 and early 2014.  But it wasn't persistent.  Even the "Press" section of the company's web site doesn't list anything beyond that brief spate three years ago.  And so, all we have here is a person whose claim to notability derives solely from a few routine interviews that were done while launching her product.  That's not enough for an article.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we shoudl just stub it, so if the subject become more notable in the future, the article can be resurrected? L3X1 (distant write)  19:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping L3X1 (distant write)  19:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I'm not proposing a "delete then redirect".  And converting directly to a "redirect" will preserve the ability to resurrect the old text if ever there is a better claim to notability.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Nom Comment Nominator supports Redirect initiative as proposed by NewYorkActuary. L3X1 (distant write)  20:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete does not fit WP:GNC and the article is overly promotional ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Cartier award (added to article now) and items like this article in the Hindu, this mention in the Guardian, this mention in the Financial Express. Arguments above referring to persistence of media coverage are inaccurate per notability policy (notability is not temporary), and in the claim that one cannot be notable based on "a few routine interviews that were done while launching her product". We do not know how many interviews she did, and policy says nothing about the number of interviews required for notability. What we do know is that lots of good sources that talk about her in sufficient depth do exist.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not find the article promotional. This enterprising women deserves a biography rather than a redirect.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject has been featured in The Guardian, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle and New Indian Express. These are more than passing mentions and they cover an extended period of time more than one note.  They talk about her work, its connections to women's lives in India and while discussing her company in a number of them, also treat her as an independent subject.  She passes WP:GNG on her own and that is independent of her company. --LauraHale (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep People need to remember that "promotional" is not a valid rationale for deletion unless the tone is so clearly an advertisement as to be unfixable, in which case you speedy delete. If there is a problem with tone, you tag it, or better yet, fix it. This article easily passes WP:GNG (per LauraHale's and 198.58.162.200's comments) and this makes me wonder, good faith always assumed, if WP:BEFORE was attempted?  freshacconci  (✉) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. L3X1 (distant write)  17:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks adequate.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:12, 22 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.