Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Jagrut


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ruby Jagrut

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an advertorial. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Please also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. NOT KEEP -- Alice McBanff 06:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability, nor evidence of it. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: appears to have substantial coverage in independent sources (even if not as many as the original version appeared to show ... I'll merge the re-used refs). Note that the article creator was not informed of this AfD, which has been nominated by a very new editor as one of their first edits. Pam  D  08:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: there has been no discussion of paid editing on either Talk:Ruby Jagrut or its creator's talk page, so it is surprising to see the assertion in this nomination. Pam  D  09:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep While the language needs to be made more encyclopedic in tone, there is enough in-depth sourcing from reliable sources to get over WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete the claims and accomplishments here are minimal or trivial. the entire exhibition section is unsourced. There is something there notability-wise, but it is not much.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Will support User:ThatMontrealIP views on this subject. The overall text of the article highly puffery in nature. Besides that, there is a lack of adequate coverage in academic domain as well as in the authoritative media. -- TWyon98 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the article was recently created, and one does not have to follow too many links to see evidence of UPE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The discussions seems to be narrowing down to a pure notability consideration, with a seeming agreement that NARTIST isn't met but GNG may (or may not) be
 * Comment, i have concerns that, as it stands, this article does not show that Jagrut meets WP:NARTIST, although the number of sources cited may lead to WP:GNG, out of respect for one of the above keepers (hi, hey coola! you're not meant to do that! well i am, so there:)) i'm staying on the fence. ps. as for upe/coi, these are heavy claims especially at a new editor, why do we regularly ignore don't be bitey? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While I see no evidence that the subject meets WP:NARTIST, there is sustained (2011-2018) significant coverage in reliable independent sources (such as the Deccan Herald, Times of India, The Hindu, New Indian Express). One issue is that most of the articles include a lot of quotes from the artist (based on interviews?), so those parts of the articles would considered primary sources. However, they are not solely interviews/quotes. I have added one more source, and done a tiny bit of editing for a more encyclopaedic tone. More could be done - also, more information from the sources could be added. But that is a case for improvement, not for deletion. The article has already been substantially improved in content, tone and referencing since it was nominated for AfD, so the WP:PROMO rationale for the AfD no longer exists (and there is no evidence of WP:COI, and WP:PAID). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * keep the Article. It's only need more citation and expansion. Deleting the Article will perish some useful data.Forest90 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the Article. It needs more credible citations as her work is not even cataloged in any of the art galleries in the world. Neither there is any information about her actual contribution to the concept of natural dye in the scholarly domain. She exists in media, agreed but that doesn't make her the artist what the article claims her to be in the first place. Nowadays, any Tom, Dick, and Harry does an art show and calls up a few media people... "voila! let's get a wiki". Khasanjim 02:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as same reason and agree pr . MyanmarBBQ (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the article. It is being forced to meet general notability criteria (WP:GNG) by using secondary media sources, none of which address her to be an authority on the subject but more or less promoting her as a subject (agree with Khasanjim). Besides that, I have the impression that the author of this article has an undeclared conflict of interest with the subject. ArchiWiki1987 02:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP article is sourced and shows the subject meets GNG  Lubbad85   (☎) 15:16, 30 April 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.