Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meenakshi Vijayakumar

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Vijayakumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This page does not seem to cover a person who is notable for Wikipedia, nor does it rely on reliable sources. It does not seem to meet the WP:BASIC standards set forth, as all mentions of the person seem to be from one primary source. Iowauniguy (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Badly written articles don't dissolve notability. The 1st and 14th sources listed looks to be enough on their own to establish multiple sources of significant coverage (albeit with the 14th reference being in Tamil not English, but I don't think that matters). Badly needs a clean up crew though. The article itself is poorly written and a quick glance at the pictures suggest a complete failure of the uploaders to have submitted properly licensed works, which may also require intervention on Wikimedia commons with certain uploaders seemingly disregarding licensing entirely. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I can see where notability may qualify. Definitely needs clean up and a look at the images. I am mainly concerned that it seems to be autobiographical in nature, especially looking at the captions in some of the images that uses first person language and that they may not have correct licensing. Iowauniguy (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being first helps. But definitely needs a major rework. I am also concerned about too many The Hindu sources. Too many sources from same publication may indicate a connection (some sort of influence). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems like being only first in something helps as I see most of the awards and achievements are not notable. And needs to be rewritten per WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This first x to do y is getting ludicrous. Wikipedia is not a place for people to post their bio and a bunch of pictures they want to preserve.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that many "first x to do y" articles scrape the barrel, but I don't believe that the first female fire officer in India (which last time I checked had about a sixth of the world's population) is among them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Until reliable sources stop putting out significant coverage of "first x to do y" subjects, they'll be notable under GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Article needs a re-write, but AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 27 March 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.