Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Ramani


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Priya Ramani

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't seem notable per WP:JOURNALIST. The Sexual Harassment Allegation is merely a WP:BLP1E. Majority of all the references is about the event only. Being the spouse of Samar Halarnkar also does not make her WP:INHERIT. Also, it is to be noted that WP:NOTNEWS applies for Sexual Harassment Allegation section. — Amkgp 💬  15:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp  💬  15:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp  💬  15:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the accusation of sexual harrassment against someone else brought by Ramani is not enough to make Ramani notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As the page creator, I want to note that the subject meets notability which is why her allegations meet WP:DIVERSE WP:LASTING WP:PERSISTENCE. The 2018 events are covered in NYT, CNN, and BBC. Moreover, I found a 2002 reference to her as well AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete She filed a defamation case; however that is not a notability criteria. Not that much notable journalist, too. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Priya Ramani did not file a defamation case.AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep sustained coverage and interviews re Metoo etc seems to show that she is an activist in the area, not participant in a single event. Artw (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Sounds like a "sour grapes" article; if she's notable as a journalist, I'm not seeing it here. Being sexually harassed is neither here nor there in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:JOURNALIST, Ramani's work as a journalist/editor based on sources offered, and a quick gsearch, is not wikisignificant, the sexual harassment allegation is already covered at M. J. Akbar, and Me Too movement (India) (altho this could be expanded). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, including per WP:JOURNALIST - based on my initial research and additions to the article, it looks like Ramani is strongly associated with the rise of #MeToo in India, i.e. "a significant new concept." I think this article would benefit from additional references and expansion, including the Vogue article written by Ramani that is mentioned in an article that I have added today. The current court proceedings also appear to be generating a significant amount of regular press coverage, which seems indicative of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With Ramani's Vogue piece added to the article, and more information from the references, per WP:JOURNALIST, it now also appears that Ramani "has created ... a significant or well-known work," based on the WP:PERSISTENCE of the WP:DIVERSE coverage about the criminal defamation case that followed, and the news sources providing commentary on the controversial nature of the proceedings, e.g. The Wire and Press Trust of India. It also now appears per WP:JOURNALIST that there is a basis for "originating a significant new concept" in the case based on Ramani's journalism, due to the arguments made by her Senior Advocate about freedom of speech and expression, and democracy. Beccaynr (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given substantial improvement done by the last keep !voter, I'm relisting for a third time. Note:I had previously closed as delete until asked about it by that editor on my talk page.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have reorganized and made substantial additions to the article to address concerns about notability raised above, and to support WP:GNG. Ramani has received significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources, including CNN and The New York Times, that are independent of Ramani. Significant coverage is related to her work as a WP:JOURNALIST (i.e. her creation of "a significant or well-known work"), including a variety of sources commenting on her journalism and the criminal defamation case she has faced because of her journalism since 2018 (e.g. Indian news commentary on Ramani's case as an example of a SLAPP lawsuit; commentary about Ramani's case in a Washington Post opinion). In addition, WP:BASIC also seems to support her notability, because "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and the coverage of Ramani is extensive. In addition, I added a new section for a recent WP:CREATIVE project that she has co-created, which has generated coverage from a variety of news sources. I've currently added the BBC, Bloomberg's Quint, and The Hindustan Times reports on her new project, but expect that there is more available because it appears to be "a significant new concept." Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the substantial improvements recently made and the addition of independent, reliable sources to establish notability. It seems to me that the the sexual harassment allegation and ensuing defamation litigation involving a former high government official is far more than a WP:BLP1E, but rather should be viewed in the context of her writings and ongoing activism about workplace sexual harassment.  JGHowes   talk  14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seeing that there is now enough coverage in reliable sources, the subject meets GNG. I also don't think WP:1E is a problem since reliable sources exist for her activism before and after the M. J. Akbar case. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:32, 2 January 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.