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. And userfy if somebody wants to improve it. Sandstein 10:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Banu[edit]

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

The references listed provide no real evidence of notability. Some of them were co-written by the subject rather than referring to her. This autobiography reads promotionally rather than neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article subject is not notable, and obvious autobiographical tone. --Ches (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regrets Searched for actual notability in reliable sources, and was unable to succeed, but this does not mean she will not be notable in future. One Oxfam link credits "Marie Banu Jawahar" for a number of photos, but nothing actually of substance, alas. Collect (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I suggested the author to add further sources but I still question its notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. This was a prematurely accepted AfC submission, originally posted at User:Mariebanu. I'm pretty sure it was written by one of the subject's colleagues editing under two accounts, not by her. See these edits by User:Mariebanu and User:Webmasterscsim, i.e. Webmasters CISM. In any case, who wrote it is not the issue. It's the evidence of notability and sufficient sourcing for a BLP that are lacking. The only remotely independent source that actually is about her rather than by her is the Chennai article about her receiving an award somehow related to Karmaveer Puraskaar which may be marginally notable, but they seem to hand out quite a few. The basis of the awards is explained here. I searched to see if there were any other potential sources and could find only self-written profiles, although there may something somewhere I've missed, hence the "draftify" rather than outright "delete". Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator, I have no objection to having the article moved to draft space. That is probably better than trying to figure out whose user space to move it to, in view of the questions about misleading user names and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. Notability is not established. Serious issues with this article have been spotted by many editors, and there are issues that should be looked into. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This apparently isn't an autobiography. That is even worse than if it were one, because the principal author is using the name of a person whom he says he isn't. However, this deletion discussion should be based on notability, not on username or sockpuppetry issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was bad faith involved by the article's creator. A lot of new users don't understand the ins and outs of our username requirements and actually think they're doing the right thing by registering a username related to the article they're planning to write or an organisation to which they are affiliated. In any case, the creator is now editing as Webmasterssocial and I've cautioned them about not editing any further under the two old usernames. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space for further editing. Delete (after an appropriate length of time) if sourcing cannot be improved and notability cannot be established. Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or draftify as has been handily argued above. I don't think a delete is appropriate at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space per all above.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making the page a draft and letting the editor attempt to improve it for a set amount of time could work, but as with a few others above, I've been unable to find any reliable sources covering the subject so it's unlikely the creator/users connected to the subject would be able to find anything. Elaenia (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Draftify. There might be sources out there which are unavailable on the internet, so no harm in letting an editor work on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet or notability requirements, and moving it to draft space doesn't change that. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2016 (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.