Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Dongre

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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. Per the discussion herein, adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Dongre

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

This article is ridiculously Promotional and nothing else. Go to Talk page, People are asking for work, as if this is facebook message board.Anita jI app k design Maine dekhe (Ms. Anita I have seen your design) and now he is looking for a chance. All articles are covered as typical by news. Encyclopedia notability is highly questionable where it is used in such a manner. Light2021 (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but strip back content. The topic appears notable as there are quite a few independent publications to reference. Unfortunately there are no footnotes to easily tell what is real and what is autobiography. We should get rid of the Philanthropy and Cultural influence sections. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional should not be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by filtering out the promotional stuff. It can be easily improved and structured up from a living person's biography perspective. References & sources can be appended as there is enough I could dig out at a glance. Johnsonwatts (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. Deletion is not the way to deal with a badly written article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient independent coverage in the article's current sources to at least pass WP:GNG. Agree that cleanup of the article is needed though. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (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.