Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disha Ravi

Disha Ravi

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Disha Ravi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Being of the few who have been arrested does not establish notability. Wareon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I had moved the page to Arrest of Disha Ravi forseeing something like this! DTM (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wareon, are you proposing we delete Arrest of Disha Ravi as well? DTM (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Wareon, are you proposing the text be deleted or are you proposing the text be moved to Arrest of Disha Ravi?

• Had the article been created post-arrest this question would have been valid. The page was created prior to the farmers' protests as well so calling it "inherited notability" also fails. The Vogue and Citizen Matters links make a case for notability of the subject in herself as a climate change activist while the arrest has only pushed her into world view. Vikram Vincent 06:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG. The person was notable much before the arrest. In fact the page was created in November 2020 with suitable citations. Vikram Vincent 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Even the BBC has covered her arrest. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56060232 Vikram Vincent 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Public outcry over her arrest covered by WP:RS https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/academics-activists-condemn-disha-ravis-arrest-say-govt-distracting-real-issues-143429 Vikram Vincent 18:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV established with The New Indian Express giving page one coverage. Vikram Vincent 05:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. My analysis of sources is as follow:

• BBC only talks about arrest.
• Vogue has only quotes from the subject, no significant coverage.
• The Wire makes no mention of "Disha Ravi"
• Arre.co.in is an unreliable source that makes no mention of "Disha Ravi".
• The News Minute is reporting same thing as BBC about arrest.
• Bengaluru.citizenmatters.in provides no biographic details but only covers her small interview.
• Boldsky.com is same as above. Just small interview.
• The Guardian only provides a quote by the subject.

Clearly, some of the sources are misused and most of them provide no significant coverage. She is known for being arrested over farmers protests but not everyone arrested over the protests require article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment:There are over 3040 sources in the article and Aman's analysis, which was made at the beginning, does not hold anymore. Please look at the newer sources before voting. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep she was notable before the arrest -- the arrest further highlighted her relationship to the international climate movement, which was why she was notable to begin with, Sadads (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, coverage is increasing exponentially, and planet-wide. Any arguments about lack of sources prior to this are based on outdated information and should be ignored. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Fails neither WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This nomination seems based on the premise of the article subject being arrested yesterday would be the reason for encyclopedic inclusion. This article was created in November; she's not notable because of being arrested, but for other work. /Julle (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Reasons others described well. Honestly, I failed to see the rational behind this nomination. RationalPuff (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per analysis of sources by Aman.kumar.goel. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources apart from those who are talking about recent arrest. See WP:NOTNEWS. Srijanx22 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Sources before the arrest say nothing other than her interview as a part of larger article as right described above. Vague handwaves does not change this. Shankargb (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Shankargb (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. This account has been warned on at least five occasions for disruptive editing latest being December 2020.

• Delete There is no scarcity of such 'climate activists' because there are too many. For a name, you can also create article about Mitzi Jonelle Tan and say that notability exists. But what requires is significant coverage in independent sources. The subject that has become more notable is 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, but not this subject whose notability relies on the protest as of now. desmay (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG, including based on the sources I have added to the article, which includes in-depth reporting on more than Ravi's arrest, and includes coverage of her past activism, education, and current prominence. As a co-founder of the 'Fridays For Future' campaign, she has been referred to as 'Bengaluru’s Greta' by the New Indian Express, and this may help explain the intense interest in her arrest and incarceration, as well as the prior and current coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Subject fails "WP:GNG". No significant coverage provided by independent reliable sources apart from her recent arrest. Hundreds have been arrested in these 'protests'. No way we would want articles for each of them. Shankargb (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:BLP1E, there is reporting that is not just about a single event, but also includes the larger context of her past activism, her association with past and current protests, and Greta Thunberg. Ravi also wasn't previously low-profile, because per the WP:LOWPROFILE explanatory supplement, she had given "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication", e.g. British Vogue, as a notable commentator, and "participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for [...] a cause," and she is engaged in "high-profile activity." Per WP:BLP1E, her arrest also appears to be significant, including based on the increasing amount of sources added to the Reactions section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Then why they don't talk about her significantly without discussing mostly about her arrest? It is because this person is known for single event. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment To clarify, per WP:LOWPROFILE, Ravi gave interviews to British Vogue and The Guardian in September 2020, before her arrest, which helps demonstrate that she is not WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Per Aman.kumar.goel's analysis of sources. Sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Nothing to show direct, in depth coverage of the subject. Many added sources do not even mention the subject and I question why they were added, and fail WP:NOR. Additionally, I think this falls into WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps there will be more significant coverage in the future, but does not seem to currently meet WP:GNG. Bigpencils (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• — Bigpencils (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The account has been primarily linked to AFD discussions.

• Delete Only being noticed over the recent arrest per WP:BLP1E. I can support a redirect to 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest since she is one of the many who have been arrested, but separate article is unwarranted. Mukt (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As others have pointed out, subject was notable before her arrest; this is not a newly created article. Funcrunch (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: as per nom and findings by Aman Kumar Goel Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 07:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. I can't see if she has done anything notable in her career that attracted media attention except her recent arrest. GSS ^💬 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• 'Delete Her only known event is indeed the sharing of toolkit as part of protests. Aside that the subject has a lack of significant coverage. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Not every arrest is notable. Neither you become notable just because you are a climate activist, also WP:notnews Shrikanthv (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BASIC, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. With over 30 WP:RS, there is zero evidence to show it fails. Vikram Vincent 08:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well sourced, and I see no reason to delete it. If there wasn't a controversy around this, I doubt that this page would have received so much deletion-attention. Tanyasingh (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of attention in major news media. Here's an in-depth article in The Guardian from today, 15 February 2021. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC).

• The Guardian article only talks about her arrest, which is nothing more than routine coverage. It does not change that the subject really fails WP:1E. LearnIndology (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - No brainer. Well sourced article, she has worked hard for climate change. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete See WP:NOTNEWS. LearnIndology (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. A good majority of WP:ILIKEIT comments above haven't proven how the subject is notable. Tessaracter (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Tessaracter: whose comments do you think are WP:ILIKEIT? Vikram Vincent 14:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep although she may not be popular unlike Thai activist Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, I feel that the subject passes WP:GNG as there is a wide media coverage mainly focusing about her arrest. Yes this is a case of WP:1E. Abishe (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Numerous people, including her, have been arrested in relation to the 26 January riots and the alleged Khalistani separatist propaganda. That clearly does not make her notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. 203.192.236.24 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Article is not about a person who is notable, WP:BIO. The girl is only in the news as she was arrested in a case. That reason alone is not sufficient to create a Wikipedia page. Amavas Ki Raat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete The notability of the subject is being inherited from 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, as such the subject lacks notability on the basis independent of the subject about which the article already exists. Krao212 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Krao212 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. The talk page of this account is filled primarily with warnings by a host of editors.

• Comment Based on the recent and past reporting, Ravi's WP:GNG notability also appears to be based on her past and current work as a climate activist, not simply her involvement with the 2020-2021 Indian farmers' protest. e.g. Farmers toolkit case: Aarey to EIA, Goa to Dehra Dun, Disha Ravi part of many climate causes (The Indian Express), Delhi Police Arrests Climate Activist Disha Ravi, Who is She? (The Quint), From climate activist to 'Toolkit Editor', who is Disha Ravi? (Economic Times), Who is Disha Ravi, the climate activist arrested by Delhi police? (Scroll.in), Who is Disha Ravi? All you need to know about the 21-year-old climate change activist held in Greta Thunberg toolkit case (The Free Press Journal). Beccaynr (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 and also note for closing admin this particular case is quite polarizing because its caught up in the larger political environment around the farmer protests: several of the accounts participating in the vote are new or inexperienced editors or accounts that have only been active on deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• But not a single source provides her coverage without mainly talking about her arrest. You need to show multiple reliable sources which provided her significant coverage without talking or mainly relying on the words about her arrest. I know that has not happened, that's why you need to read WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so the significant coverage of Ravi's past activism and biographical information does appear to contribute to her notability, even when the sources also discuss her recent arrest and/or incarceration. In addition, there are sources, such as British Vogue and The Guardian, at minimum per WP:BASIC, that contributed to her notability before her arrest, because "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The article was created well before her arrest, including citing The Guardian, which is an internationally renowned newspaper, well before her arrest. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The Government of India's Delhi Police has made her notable. Here's an article in The New York Times. I would have created the page myself. It's great to see such a well-referenced page. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This article existed before the single event being complained of, so not only should WP:BLP1E be considered, but also the notability of Disha Ravi prior to arrest. In any event WP:BLP1E has three conditions that must be met. The third is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. For this to be NOT met the event must be significant AND the individual's role must be substantial AND well documented. Given the depth of coverage of the arrest, and that Disha Ravi's role in that arrest was central and the arrest is well documented, I contend that the third condition is not met and so WP:BLP1E is not met, and so the article should not be deleted. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Created as a puff piece[1] with zero reliable sources providing her significant coverage. Having an article on Wikipedia is no indication of notability, otherwise there would be no process called "AfD". Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Puff piece is defined as Puff piece is an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery: an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary. What you linked to was a stub. Please don't confuse with terminology. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 05:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The article was created before her arrest November 12th 2020. Ample references even then to prove she is notable. Now even more coverage of her. Dream Focus 21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per Sadads and Bishonen, and Beccanyr; the sources provided by Beccanyr are substantive, and discuss more than just the arrest. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The page was under the radar when it was created, does she have notability? The page creator is an admin, they have voted here without declaring that they created the page, that may not be a "rule" but imo good manners I suppose. Did the article pass the exacting standards that Wikipedia requires? I checked one source, the Thomson Reuters one. An opinion piece in which the subject is one amongst the many. The article as it stood then smacks of WP:NOTADVOCACY and ought not to have existed. Is there objectivity in how Wikipedia chooses its subjects? My vote is to impart it. Looking at it today the subject is not notable except for her arrest. Basis of my vote is wp:notnews wp:event and wp:1E Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment:From the first version you linked, the Vogue focuses on four climate change activists of colour and Disha is one. Citizen matters is a community reporting website which focuses on interviewing Ravi. This establishes basic notability. What it also establishes is that the subject is not a product of the farmer protests as being claimed. Vikram Vincent 04:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Ravi is a notable person recieving considerable media attention, and ought to remain on Wikipedia. Even if she were not notable beyond her arrest, the coverage from BBC and other international news warrants at least a page covering that. Audrey (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This article has 41 references and clear independent media coverage. She was notable in her hometown of Bangalore before being arrested. It would be a tragedy for Wikipedia if this was deleted for arbitrary notability reasons. Narayansg (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This article is based on a person known for a single incident, hence must be deleted.--03:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.43.76 (talk)
• Keep - I find the keep arguments persuasive. Sourcing from the arrest is plentiful and in depth, and sufficient sourcing precedes the arrest to get over 1E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)