Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riju Jhunjhunwala


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Riju Jhunjhunwala

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

Biography of living person who does not satisfy general notability or political notability. Both a draft and an article have been created, possibly to prevent moving the article into draft space. None of the references in the article are independent significant coverage. They include passing mentions, an interview, and profiles of his company and his foundation. It has not been necessary to check reliability of sources, but many of them are in the Times of India, which is not considered reliable, but it has not been necessary to check reliability of sources, because they do not pass the independent secondary significant coverage test.

The draft has 8 footnotes, which are mostly the same as in the article, and a URL dump, which has not been checked. Either the article can be simply deleted, or the draft can be deleted and the article moved into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Business,  and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Per Nom's detailed examination. --  Otr500 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per available Significant coverage, the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Below is the list of published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And passes WP:THREE.

https://myneta.info/loksabha2019/candidate.php?candidate_id=11147 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/stocks-that-may-not-have-achche-din/articleshow/69464219.cms https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/IN/XNSE/RSWM/company-people/executive-profile/86357100 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/13-of-25-seats-in-rajasthan-to-go-to-polls-on-monday-115-candidates-in-fray/articleshow/69083194.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/garments-/-textiles/pli-for-man-made-fibre-technical-textile-to-boost-sectors-growth-says-rswm-cmd/articleshow/83430692.cms https://www.business-standard.com/company/heg-251/info https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/panama-papers-bhilwara-group-panama-papers-india-list-mossack-fonseca-bhilwara-group-of-companies-2785032/ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/heg-ltd/infocompanymanagement/companyid-13630.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ground-level-problems-can-enable-development/articleshow/74795027.cms https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=936764 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/elections/lok-sabha-elections-2019/rajasthan/news/songs-music-dance-to-woo-voters-in-ajmer/articleshow/68772828.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/delhi/A-grand-wedding-reception/articleshow/6002713.cms https://news.abplive.com/movies/salman-khan-in-bina-kaks-daughter-amritas-wedding-throwback-pics-is-something-you-cant-miss-1001809 https://www.newsnationtv.com/india/news/jawahar-foundation-empowering-women-in-rajathan-for-a-brighter-future-258168.html Thefinaldestiny (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep after analysis of all the references provided by the creator, i can find few significant coverage that passes WP:THREE and i can say the subject passes WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: As per above article passes WP:ANYBIO. MickyShy (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The sources provided don't help exactly. Several WP:TOI sources aren't explicitly reliable. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  13:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete nothing notable in the sources as examined. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets Wikipedia's WP:RS. There are many sources which are independently written these are in published reliable sources. 1. The Wall Street Journal - It is a general reliable sources as discussed in Perennial sources, 2 Indian Express resource accepted as reliable per WP:INDIANEXP. 3. Economic Times considered as generally reliable and notable. And passes WP:THREE. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The keep votes simply repeat the same links questioned in the source analysis without explaining why. Of the WP:THREE sources provided in the previous vote, WSJ is a simple company listing; ET articles are interviews and IE just a quote. Hemantha (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment After doing a close analysis of all the references i would go with Robert McClenon. And changing my vote to Delete. DMySon (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to source analysis by Robert McClenon. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck various sock !votes, see Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * : is a sock of GermanKitty and was blocked today, 3 May 2022. He reviewed his own article (this article) on New Page Patrol. Reverted. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing notable in the sources as examined.--Whiteguru (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Robert's excelent source analysis NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 02:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per Nom's source analysis.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:50, 5 May 2022 (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.