Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Goenka (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Rachel Goenka
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBIO. But qualifies for WP:PROMO, as a promotional article and WP:BIORELATED, as an invalid criteria. ''Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable.'' Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep She's earned a few awards of distinction within the chef/restaurant community in which she is employed, including one from the Times of India. Article is about a prominent female, which would help combat gender bias on Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment None of them are notable awards - we do not have articles about those awards, and nor are they likely to meet our criteria. Edwardx (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to her famous fathers bio. I fail to see anything notable about her. The fact that she won awards isn't really relevant to notability on it's own and I'm not sure what else there is that would pass the standards. Combating gender bias isn't a good reason to keep the article either. There's much better ways to do it then keeping articles about people based solely on something like their gender. Although, unfortunately it's a keep argument that seems to be coming up way more for some reason recently. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand why the nom brings up BIORELATED: the article doesn't make any claim on notability through her family. Her books have been widely reviewed, so she passes WP:AUTHOR. See Outlook Traveler, Indian Express, The Hindu. The awards don't hurt, either. pburka (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe because her being an author is third on the list of things she's known for and it's extremely small part of the article. Which is about her as a person so BIORELATED 100% applies. Otherwise you could single out any minor thing someone does at say special notability guidelines for that thing applies. notability is suppose to be based on the general topic of the article isn't about an author. Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BIORELATED is about being related to a famous person. Her famous father is mentioned in one sentence at the end of the article. From what I can tell, the nom is proposing that this be deleted because she's related to a famous person. That's not how we do things. pburka (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know. The nominator gave it as the last reason out of three. I think your nitpicking. She still fails the other two anyway. So just ignore it if you don't agree with it. Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to whatever section of her famous daddy's bio is appropriate. GNG is not a thing in the article at hand, but WP:ATD is a thing in AfD discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is one of three articles just created by a new account. This seems to be some sort of promotionalist action in violation of our guidelines. We need to stop it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The reason given in the deletion nomination looks false. I don't find article promotional in any sense. Whatever the information is written is supported by the third party reliable source. It also doesn't make any claim on notability through her family, even her father's name is mentioned once only in Personal life. Now, just because her family is known, the article shouldn't suffer. After reading the guidelines of BIORELATED, I do not think if it applies here. It meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NBIO, as the subject has gained significant media coverage from the various newspaper and the nominator should have performed WP:BEFORE. Also, I think if any article contains any PROMO in the page, it needs a WP:FIXit, not WP:DELETION. I also found the article PASSED AFD in its last nomination in 2016. So, I'll go for keep. --2401:4900:5177:719:257F:5030:40FA:6AFF (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect: Per my source analysis below. Redirect to the section Viveck_Goenka. - hako9 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I failed to list two other reliable sources which I have added now. With these sources she passes GNG. But worth noting that all the four combined reliable sources are actually just short(ish) book reviews on her only published book. I feel the subject still fails WP:AUTHOR and her notability is not enduring as per WP:NTEMP and WP:1E, so I am not changing my !vote. In case the AfD consensus is keep, the unreliable sources and promo content needs to be removed. - hako9 (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - hako9 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ( NOTE : The relist wasn't done by me as evidenced from the edit history. The invisible comment I made earlier wasn't closed properly and hence the subst temp relist shows my signature instead of Spartaz's signature) - hako9 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, the source analysis by Hako9 shows that she just barely passes GNG, with two reliable sources giving her significant coverage. The article could use quite a bit of work, but it’s not promotional to the extent a WP:TNT delete would be the solution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:20, 26 July 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.