Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshula Kant

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. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anshula Kant

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are PTI reprints and are not independent. Appointment at World Bank doesn't grant automatic notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. PTI isn't an advertising agency: it's an independent news agency just like Reuters, AP, UPI or AFP. She's received significant coverage in major newspapers like Indian Express ("Who is Anshula Kant, new CFO of World Bank?") and Deccan Chronicle ("Banking on success"). pburka (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion. But from what I know, you can get anything published through PTI if you are willing to pay. Hence, I am concerned with independence when it comes to PTI. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that the news agency isn't independent and reliable? pburka (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See in a Quora discussion here [1] - seems to be a common knowledge that there are paid routes for PTI. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Press Trust of India isn't currently listed at WP:RSPSS, but all newspapers and news agencies receive press releases. Reliable sources do their own fact checking before writing a story on the topic. If you want to challenge the reliability of a major news organization this is the wrong venue: you should start a discussion on WP:RSN. pburka (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think if they would fact check etc, they would at least write 'edited by' and put a staff writer. But yes, there is no clarity at PTI thing. This should be discussed. Also reading Deccan Chronicle article - very clearly a rewritten piece of supplied information. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're right about the Deccan Chronicle piece, it is rewritten and by-lined. The newspaper clearly thought she was notable enough to spend time doing that. pburka (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with pburka.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I also found pburka's reasoning convincing. Also, World Bank Group is extremely notable and CFO is important enough to deserve an article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article constitute significant coverage from reliable sources, allowing the subject to meet WP:BASIC. I'm not convinced that the assertions about PTI have enough evidence to challenge the reliability of the sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.