Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritu Lalit

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. Week keep is a keep. Tone 07:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Lalit

[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)

I think I am being bold for nominating this. While this seems to be a notable page, it doesn't qualify WP:AUTHOR. As per the criteria, her work should be significant or well-known. None of the books seem to have received significant attention from any reliable sources apart from their launch (launches/events can easily get attention in print). The one source that's indeed useful are the two print of Hindustan Times (which she has uploaded on her website and provided as a reference to). However, those are not independent either. The Femina article is an interview and hence not independent either. "Wish to pen a book? Make a splash with blogging". that has been cited thrice is an wire release. Concludingly, it fails WP:GNG. Also, it is created by a blocked user. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on the inclusion of her stories in the official CBSE syllabus. If it were a book, that would have satisfied WP:NBOOK#4. That, combined with the (not entirely independent) press coverage, makes her sufficiently notable for inclusion. pburka (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per pburka, and WP:BASIC, because the 2011 Femina article appears to have some commentary woven into it; my !vote could be stronger if I was able to more fully assess the source, but there is also biographical information in what is available that could help expand the article. The 2012 Hindustan Times profile is in-depth coverage, the 2013 Hindustan Times coverage is about more than a book launch and discusses her as an author as well as her book, and the brief coverage in a 2015 Indo-Asian News Service article about blogging and becoming an author also appears to support her WP:SUSTAINED notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:54, 9 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.