Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Shoban

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. I discounted all struck sock comments, and gave less weight (but did not discount entirely) to Venkat TL's comment given they were only topic banned after commenting here. Legoktm (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Shoban

Indira Shoban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Being a spokesperson of a political party's state wing is most certainly NOT an

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Skynxnex (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is entirely sourced to press releases which lack independence from the subject or to articles with just passing mentions. Fails
  WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I don't think this passes
  WP:NPOL], because there is not significant coverage and not a political position. ZanciD (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock. Venkat TL (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Passes
  WP:NPOL. NPOL is not the only criteria. Telugu media coverage of her work. [1] [2] [3] [4] English media [5] [6] [7]. Venkat TL (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: Venkat TL has been topic banned from this subject. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenthave mentioned [8] [9] [10] English media whatever links you have mentioned, many youtube links and youtube links do not prove that you are notable person [11] [12] [13] The news link you have shown is a press release so fail
  WP:GNG I think delete. Lionfox0909 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Those links are youtube official channels of Telugu news sites and newspapers. If you can read Telugu (I can't) you will be able to find their sites and detailed write ups too. Venkat TL (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These youtube videos are interviews by the subject being the spokesperson for her political party. Which is not enough to satisfy

  WP:ANYBIO TheWikiholic (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per reasons by Venkat TL. NPOL is not the only criteria. Timothytyy (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI, Venkat TL has been subject to an indefinite topic ban on the subject of politics in the

  WP:ARBIPA topic area, broadly construed (that includes related individuals, political history, etc.) And can you please enlighten me on what other criterias that gives the subject notability? TheWikiholic (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @TheWikiholic Thanks for your information. After an inspection of the sources and the content, I think that the article is quite useless in terms of readers' interest. So I will go for delete instead. Timothytyy (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reading this page shows that it has secondary sources but looking at the page it seems that this page has been promoted but this page can be corrected
  WP:TOOSOON, so that it takes NPOV.🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock TheWikiholic (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Can you please provide the secondary sources that you found in the article covering the subject in detail? TheWikiholic (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2022 (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.