Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veena Kumaravel

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Kumaravel

[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)

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly tending towards Keep: Oh dear, I'm not defending the current state of the article, which is pure promotion. However, I've managed to find some reliable sources about this person, chief among them being this 2017 Penguin book Millionaire Housewives: From Homemakers to Wealth Creators, which presents 12 case studies on Indian female entrepreneurs. She is one of them. The profile is on page 41 which says "Her true contribution to women's entrepreneurship, however, lies in creating an over 250-crore business empire from scratch....She started off with a single salon and has now over 550 salons spread across the country." Then, here's a feature on her in The Hindu (looks independent and given Hindu's reputation), this Business Standard story is based on the Penguin book. A Deccan Chronicle story here that talks about her journey and a story in the Entrepreneur magazine. Another in-depth feature in Outlook Business. Given the reliable sources (unless I have grossly misidentified something) and her inclusion in a book covering entrepreneurship by a reputed publisher, the subject looks notable to me. Also, given the gender inequality on Wikipedia (more so for South Asian topics), such an article should be encouraged, as it seems to me she has created something of note from absolute zero. But. But. But. Definitely not in the way it looks now -- needs to be drastically pared down to its bones using the highest quality sources, which are available. I would start with the Penguin book, if I were the editor of the page! (I would have done it myself, but don't have the inclination or the will.) Regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MaysinFourty, The sources, though reliable and significant, are not independent of the subject when they are interviews. While they can be used as references, they cannot establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG. This seems to be the case in Hindu and DC at least. Ab207 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MaysinFourty. Not sure what Ab207 is referring to wrt to interviews (I see nothing in GNG about interviews), but clearly there's a lot of in-depth coverage discussing her story of business - I glanced at a few of them. II | (t - c) 12:14, 18 August 2020 (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.