Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raquel Evita Saraswati (4th 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Raquel Evita Saraswati
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is mostly developed from coverage focused on one event in early 2023, and substantial article content is supported by a press release produced by the article subject. The limited coverage in independent, reliable, and secondary sources provides minimal support for enduring notability; deletion seems supported by WP:BLP and WP:NOT policies, which encourage higher-quality and more sustained coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Sexuality and gender,  and Pennsylvania. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Largely negative coverage, mostly about racial issues and her misrepresentations. I can only find coverage about the negative aspects, nothing about her as an activist. Being famous for "not telling the truth" could get you an article, but we'd need neutral coverage. I don't see enough to source a balanced article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The claim that Saraswati lied about her ethic identity comes from a single source. An estranged family member of low character. All other claims about her ethnicity are a direct result that one article and that one source. The article provided, contains Saraswati's official response to the accusations and includes a statement from a board certified dermatologist - Dr. Jayne Bird of Philadelphia - who she has been seeing for at least six years. The dermatologist confirmed the results from "three independent and extensive DNA tests" and the validity of Saraswati's identity as a woman of color.
 * "Raquel has been my regular patient since 2018. As a dermatologist, I classify her skin type as Fitzpatrick Skin Type 4, meaning she has light brown/olive skin color. Natural skin color is determined by genetics and skin type often represents a blend of ethnicities. Her DNA includes the following ethnicities, among others: North African (close to 40%), West Asian, Greek and South Italian (these two are grouped as one category representing approximately 6% of Raquel's DNA). Low amounts (<5%) of Nigerian and other ethnicities are also present. Based on this genetic testing and my observations, it is clearly established that she is skin type 4 and skin of color." - Dr. Bird.
 * The article is valid. Warriorcitizen5150 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the first four hits in Gnews are from different sources, and to be honest, being one race or another doesn't get you notability here. We need more about her other activities, that we don't have. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So if we pull out anything racial, what do we have left? Confirmation that a woman worked as an activist. There is not extensive coverage about her "activism", so she doesn't meet notability requirements here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources about her (the phillymag source in the article is an interview) from before she resigned, which definitely appears as a WP:BLP1E to me. I think it's fair to say that #1 and #2 are met, but I'm more mixed on #3. Although since the coverage of it, aside from a press release by her, had stopped after March 2023 I'm inclined to say that's met too.
 * Also to note the first two AfDs in 2006 and 2013 were to delete, the third in 2023 was a speedy keep as there was no deletion rationale. Shaws username  .  talk  . 23:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per nom, along with the fact the person requested a long time ago not to have an article written about her. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think salt may be appropriate according to WP:BLPDELETE, including because to address imbalance from the press release produced by the article subject, the September 10, 2023 source in the article that reports on the press release would seem to contribute further negative content about the subject. Beccaynr (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I personally disagree, that would be the overwhelming consensus. Let me explain .... When I first started as a Wikipedian, and continuing until today, I am of the personal opinion that people who commit fraud and other serious crimes ought to be dragged from one end of the Internet to the other. However, in one infamous AfD, I was outvoted like 661 to 1. According to our agreed policies, including an informal one of Damnatio memoriae, and past precedents, this should be deleted based on WP:BLP1E. Again, setting aside my personal opinion, if we are to follow guidelines consistently and remain neutral, this must be deleted for good. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2024 (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.