Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuchi Agrawal

Shuchi Agrawal

Shuchi Agrawal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: Non-notable individual with no reliable sources to establish notability. The article appears to have been created by a user with a strong WP:COI. Probably qualifies for an speedy but it was prodded and the prod removed by a single purpose account. A Google News search result for "Shuchi Agrawal" or "शुचि अग्रवाल" returned with nothing. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, The subject is notable as per Wikipedia:Notability since four reliable sources have been quoted. The troubling issue is that the nominator seems to have no reasons to establish the "why" of his assertions. It is not clear how the nominator came to the assertion that the person who started the article has a COI. I did not start the article, and I do not have a COI with the subject. Second, the assertion that I have a single purpose account is also false, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

The search for "Shuchi Agrawal recipes" throws her website as the first hit on Google. The search for just the first name in Hindi "शुचि" throws her website as the fifth hit on Google.

Google News should not be used for India related AFD's. Domasai (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep The Page is informative and should not be deleted.Adiagr (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? where is that significant coverage in reliable sources? GSS (talk|c|em) 06:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

: Dear GSS - I would like you to consider doing what is suggested in the AFD deletion process " Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Please mention your reservations on the article's talk page or the main contributor's page first, and that after making an effort to improve the article. Please do not assume COI, where none exists. Domasai (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Clearly promotional. None of the sources are secondary sources. Interviews and PR are not primary sources. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

: Please take a moment to look at the criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, as done here. Second, please describe how the page is promotional, it is not clear to me (for example). Please also clarify how the sources are not secondary, you language about "not primary sources" is confusing. Thanks!Domasai (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - all the sources are primary (@Domasai:, this is covered in WP:PRIMARY - bottom line is, Wikipedia is not interested in what anybody has written about themselves, but what independent sources have written about them) with the possible exception of the sulekha.com interview. Interviews are however not considered a sufficient sign of notability, especially not in a relatively obscure publication. And no amount of cleanup of an article can create notability for its subject. Please note that "notability" is used in a very specific and peculiar sense on Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with "worthiness" or "goodness". --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

: I am at a loss to understand how the interview at Prabhat Khabar is not secondary. I am also at a loss to understand how the source from Abhivyakti is not correct - subject is profiled there, there are editorial controls, and it was a good source I could find for the subject. I also do not understand how the fourth source (constantcontact.com) is primary - it shows that the subject is involved in teaching. Your comment about notability being different from worthiness is correct - however, my suggestion to GSS was more focused on the process he adopted for the page using unsupported accusations. My focus is on the content, which may be useful for encyclopedia, his seems to be on deleting something he does not like, by accusing others. That is not approriate behavior. Domasai (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the interview might not be considered a primary source but it does not make the subject notable. The others are primary - a presentation of a professional (such as a teacher) by the organisation that employs that person is primary. GSS used the correct process here - there is no question of liking or disliking, when a subject (i.e. the content) is obviously not notable the article should be deleted. Again, no amount of cleanup can address the fundamental problem of lack of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Domasai: Disliking? Well I spent around an hour before nominating this article for deletion but my WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any reliable, independent sources of information with in-depth coverage of Shuchi Agrawal, I also tried per WP:INDAFD but again found nothing to support notability and same as Bonadea said above no amount of cleanup of an article can create notability for its subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the interview might not be considered a primary source but it does not make the subject notable. The others are primary - a presentation of a professional (such as a teacher) by the organisation that employs that person is primary. GSS used the correct process here - there is no question of liking or disliking, when a subject (i.e. the content) is obviously not notable the article should be deleted. Again, no amount of cleanup can address the fundamental problem of lack of notability. --bonadea