Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raji Arasu


 * 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. This article can't spend forever at AfD. Detailed policy-based reasoning has been presented both for deleting and for keeping. At the end of the day we need consensus to delete and we don't have that here. Haukur (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Raji Arasu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not independently notable outside of her company, lack WP:RS, fails WP:GNG, another corporate spam. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

First, when did I claim that the Forbes is unreliable? Forbes.com is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP. And that's what I mentioned here. Also, WP:ORGCRIT is a notability guideline, and it mentions that the Forbes blogs by non-staff contributors are not considered independent. Still, I used "passive voice weasel wording" to give it the benefit of the doubt. If you want explanation for them being non-independent, then you should ask at the talk page of the relevant guideline, i.e. at Wikipedia talk:CORP. You also totally ignored the remaining part of my previous comment.
 * Keep Coverage in sources like Forbes.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Forbes is not a reliable source here, as it written by a contributor and not staff, it is not a RS in this situation. Meeanaya (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is written by a sports writer, named Mark J. Burns. What makes you think that Mark J. Burns has a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy?  What makes you think that the article has bypassed any of Forbes' editorial processes for the same? Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , contributors' content on Forbes.com doesn't count towards notability, and is considered generally unrelaible: for details, see WP:ORGCRIT and check the entry of Forbes.com at WP:RSP. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * and Burns is a sports and technology writer and as such is a subject-matter expert so despite being a contributor this article could be used to show notability as per Reliable sources/Perennial sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * More than reliability, the main problem is that these type of sources are generally not considered independent, per WP:ORGCRIT. Anyway, let's say this is a third-party source. But even then this is just a single source. Are there other reliable, independent, in-depth sources about her? - NitinMlk (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When the claim that Forbes is unreliable is shown to be wrong by the very thing that you point to, you switch tack to independence. But that with the passive voice weasel wording "are generally considered".  Why is Mark J. Burns, writing in Forbes not independent of an Indian businessperson?  For reference,  is the sort of source that the Primary Notability Criterion discounts as not independent: advertising and autobiography. Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Second, I didn't "switch tack" to anything. In my very first comment here, I stated that "contributors' content on Forbes.com doesn't count towards notability", along with pointing to the relevant guideline, as I thought you would read the relevant details (regarding non-independent nature of these blogs) from that page.

Finally, I am familiar with WP:WOMRED, and if the subject has received some decent coverage in a couple of other independent sources, then I am fine with it. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable. FitIndia  ✉ बात 06:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On what evidence do you base this comment, please? 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - the sources cited do not meet WP:BIO. However, in addition, there is much that is not encyclopaedic in the page. It states "Arasu is noted for her work towards educating, mentoring and empowering women to be successful in the male-dominated computer and technology industry." A big claim requires a big source but this claim is unsourced. Which women has she mentored to success in these industries? She has worked for eBay but eBay is cited as a source for another big claim "eBay described her as a "role model for women", given her work as a technology executive,". This eBay source is used five times and is clearly a puff piece based on an interview she gave to The Daily Muse which as the Wikipedia article on The Muse (website) states: "creates in-depth profiles of companies seeking top talent, showcasing their brand" and as is as far away from a RS you can get. And so on, I could parse most of the article similarly. Essentially this is a promotional piece for a worthy, successful person but not one who meets our notability standards. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This looks pretty borderline to me. There are many non-independent sources in the article, which don't help in showing notability. The independent ones seem to be The Daily Muse and Forbes. I can't see the Boston Globe source, so I don't know how much it has about her. Computerworld includes her in some articles where IT leaders give advice and opinions - March 2009 and August 2016, and in 2016 included her in 100 Premier Technology Leaders. (I'm not including links as I access them through the NLA.) Business Insider in 2017 had her as #28 on a list of "43 most powerful female engineers of 2017", and in 2014 had her as one of "5 Successful Women In Technology From India" . So that coverage extends from 2009-2017. It's not substantial, but neither is it trivial, and I think it just meets WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2019 (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.