Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Goenka


 * 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. North America1000 08:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Goenka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still confirming my removed PROD: "Hinting at promotional since it also go to details about her business works and such, still questionable for WP:GNG and the overall article is not convincing for this. The listed sources are only expected coverage and nothing suggesting either solid notability for Rachel Goenka or the businesses themselves.". My searches also easily found nothing better. SwisterTwister  talk  05:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question Hi . (cc ) At first glance I'd compare this article to restaurateur Rachael Ray, but as noted by in Articles for deletion/M. S. Ramaiah, there are unique issues to be considered in evaluating this articles subject, such as  Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs, leaving me unsure how to proceed here. Do you have any guidance/suggestions? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This would have still needed better news sources but my searches found nothing including the link above so it seems to be too soon. SwisterTwister   talk  17:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * location:
 * restaurant:
 * WP:INDAFD: Rachel Goenka The Sassy Spoon


 * Keep per she and her work receiving the requisite coverage to meet WP:BASIC. The comparison to Rachael Ray is WP:WAX but appropriate, as coverage imparts notability... even if it is food related. Broken google-foo is sad but does not make the coverage disappear.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added some references and sources for this article and during my continued searching for information on this articles subject have yet to find/discover anything other than this is a very accomplished and skilled young Indian woman whose sucess is made even more remarkable by the awards she's won in such a short time. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The best part would be that you found extra coverage but this is still questionable for WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, "very accomplished" and "skilled" is simply not solid to save this. SwisterTwister   talk  12:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I apologize for inserting my personal thoughts about this articles subject here, where it doesn’t belong. However, this subject does meet WP:BASIC as admin  points out, which is all I should have stated in the first place. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if a person meets WP:BASIC, we do not then look to SNGs. "Very accomplished" and "skilled" are perfectly fine if backed up with coverage in multiple sources.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There are several reliable sources here: Verve Magazine review of her restaurant, Vogue India review of her cooking, Forbes India (mention), Mumbai Mirror, DNA India, discussion with Rachel, Indian Express award given to Rachel and co-chef... and then there are my own searches which turned up: mention in Upper Crust India, Hindustan Times, mention in Times of India, The Hindu, The Indian Express, another Indian Express, Another write up in Mumbai Mirror with bio, another Mumbai Mirror write up. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG criteria. Article needs expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2016 (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.