Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanitha Datla

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitha Datla

[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)

Non-notable businessperson. Fails WP:GNG. There is some news about her regional position with Confederation of Indian Industry but that's not sufficient to cross notability. The page seems to be written only to promote her and like a CV. Created by WP:SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"regional position" is in fact position in Telangana State, not in some Apopa County. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep cleanup. Some awards are verifiable. Sifnificant independent covera e exist: [1] Lembit Staan (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be significant.--Hippeus (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The position and awards are not significant. The above DC source is basically an interview, thus not an indepedent coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks WP:SIGCOV. As mentioned by Ab207 the positions and awards are not notable or significant. defcon5 (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added good sources to meet WP:BIO, few more to be addedApplus2021 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently four sources. [2] - profile at WEF and not an independent source. [3] - trivial mention and hence not significant. I also think it is not independent and is taken from some press release. [4] - again a press release. Similar content available at [5] & [6]. Last [7] - while this one looks like it qualifies, it is not significant coverage of her. Her name is surely in the heading, but when we read, there isn't much about her except what she is saying. [8] This added by Lembit Staan is helpful according to me (despite Ab207 disregarding it completely because it is an interview); but we need multiple in-depth, independent and reliable sources. For now, it fails WP:GNG for me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added few more reliable sources, need to add some more Applus2021 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The new source added [9] is again a PTI release and should not be considered independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -KH-1 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A chancer. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 3 May 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.