Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Vanita


 * 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 keep. Consensus that the additional reviews added demonstrate notability per NAUTHOR, (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Vanita

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable person. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Author. No major coverage in WP:RS and no secondary source is cited as reference even though this is WP:Bio. All the claims are dubious and vague; not backed by sources. Wiki is the only source and can be used as circular reporting.

This article should be removed as soon as possible because the Ruth Vanita was involved in the editing the Article. Violation of WP:COI

--Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not delete. Deleting this article makes no sense. Ruth Vanita is a major academic and researcher. Her books have been published by Penguin India, one of the most important publishers in India, and her works are regularly used in courses around the world. She is one of the leading scholars in the world on the history and sociology of queer people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans) in South Asia, a part of the world that accounts for more than 15% of the world's population. She did not start this Wikipedia article: I did. I have never met her, and this article was not started as any kind of promotion. It was started precisely because she is a major figure in an important area of research and teaching. I'm not sure whether she has contributed to it. If she has, those portions can be edited. Inter lingua 14:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * let’s accept that she’s major scholar and notable person who should have page on Wikipedia but why not a single secondary source has been cited in the page to support her notability? If someone is being taught in studies then it doesn’t mean she should have Wikipedia page. —Harshil169 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Just look at the contributions of in which she is adding details about herself and her colleague Saleem. Clear violation of WP:COI and this page should be removed or should be started from scratch. --Harshil169 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject is obviously notable given independent sources that are easily found by doing Google, Google scholar, JSTOR and news searches. Article could have been improved before nom as per WP:BEFORE. She is not only widely published and reviewed, she is a full professor and the director of the South & SE Asian Studies Department at the University where she teaches. She has received grants & fellowships from the American Philosophical Society (the oldest learned society in the US), Fulbright Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, and others. Netherzone (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Main concern is conflict of interest(NPOV) and verifiability is too. Ruth Vanita herself is a contributor in the editing article and adding details about her books which are not published yet and that too without any proper citation. Whole article was written on the base of one reference and that too is not reliable. I tried to improve the article but so much details and that too about her parents are added in the article which isn’t even publicly available. Obviously, her associate is editing article on her. According to me, she’s not notable scholar who received multiple coverages and interviews in media to have Wikipedia page. If you think article should be improved then we can work together but no unsourced information about her should be tolerated as it violates WP:BIO —Harshil169 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Her work does seem to be reviewed in various scholarly journals, and additionally she is described as prominent in other RS and cited in more. Seems to be a notable academic. I agree that the article's poorly written, but that's hopefully fixable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can cite those RS here if you think she has received enough coverage and her article should be kept. And another main concern is she herself was editing her article and adding details about her upcoming books. Obviously, violation of WP:SPAM --Harshil169 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is sufficiently prominent; article should be rewritten however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindongyt (talk • contribs)
 * Sign when you're commenting on important issue. Cite reliable sources to prove that she is prominent. --Harshil169 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added some book reviews, enough I think to pass WP:AUTHOR. As nominated the article needed cleanup but that's not what AfD is for. And : Please see WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this policy. Thanks for bringing attention of me. --Harshil169 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not policy; merely advice. Anyway, you're welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Tons of coverage and reviews of her books. ~ Winged Blades Godric 11:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing brought by David Eppstein]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR as demonstrated by the reviews included by Eppstein. PROMO can be managed through editing. I placed COI banners on the talkpage. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR with room to spare. As edited, it is not overly promotional at the moment. The remaining biographical claims are dry stuff that can be sorted out through ordinary editing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment What the....hell ? Shame nominator! what reason you nomination for MPs (member of parliament)  and notable articles only?? You did many deletion reqs for notable persons with base on WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Shame on you. should be report this nominator to check user request.Burmese pokemon (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than shaming, try to stick on policy and debate on the issues. I already said that at time of nomination, only one reference and that too personal blog was cited as reference and Ruth Vanita was also contributor in article. Is this Wikipedia’s policy to write article? I didn’t did any crime to nominate this person’s article. Read WP:Civility before shaming on me. — Harshil   14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, and AfD isn't the place to fix problems with the article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:58, 30 July 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.