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. Its clear the sourcing has not improved in GNG terms since the previous deletion and DRV consensus and, based on that, and the rough consensus here this is a clear outcome. I do feel that those editors declaring a possible interest should respectfully be accorded less weight then uninvolved votes and some of the other keep votes were bare assertions or not grounded in a policy based argument. SpartazHumbug!12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination since the page was previously deleted following a deletion review. In my opinion the sourcing has not improved since the last time the article was deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I am correct in saying the version of the article where it was nominated for deletion is here and the version deleted at the conclusion of the XfD is here. As such there should be no need to point peoples at archives of alternative Wiki's which would never be regarded as an acceptable source. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the subject's current roles, namely chair of Wikimedia UK, is a role I occupied some years ago. I have never met Shah nor interacted with her in any way. MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last AfD. There was a solid consensus there that Shah, while accomplished, is not notable. This was upheld at a well-attended DRV. Since then yes, the prose has improved, but as far as I can tell only four new independent sources have been added: the Broadcast Now and Asian Express articles that were already discussed at DRV and did not change the outcome;[1][2] a single-line mention in a blog post from the Institute of Art & Law;[3] and a Who's Who entry,[4] which per WP:RSPis considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. These do not make any difference to Shah's notability, nor does padding the article with reams of primary sources that just say "we appointed Monisha Shah to our board". I'm usually all for giving deleted articles a second chance in draft space, but I have to say this time it seems like it has been used to subvert the consensus at AfD+DRV. And given the COI concerns in the last AfD, I don't think it's a "good look" that WMUK people have already showed up to circle the wagons here. A job with a WMF affiliate should not come with an exemption from Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. – Joe (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: The sole purpose of your penultimate sentence appears to be to denigrate a fellow editor, namely me, without advancing any argument. Please be good enough to strike it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelMaggs: I'll clarify then. My argument is that editors with close ties to an organisation should not be editing or voting on biographies of that organisation's leaders. That kind of thing sullied the last AfD and DRV, and it'd be great if we could just have neutral editors discussing the actual article and sourcing this time. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe I didn't ask you to "clarify" that sentence – which is purely intended to denigrate – but to strike it. Read it again. The sentence clearly falls within WP:WIAPA: "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read to the end of that bullet point? Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. – Joe (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe Of course. But you didn't question me, you said that I "already showed up to circle the wagons". Had you asked, I could have told you that my interest in this article has nothing to do with any affiliation. While updating Committee on Standards in Public Life, an article I have worked on significantly over several years, I noticed that Monisha Shah was one of the few individuals (perhaps the only individual) personally appointed by the prime minister to that committee who did not have a Wikipedia article. I wondered why that was. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe:: You, an administrator, are opined one or more people have used draft space to subvert AfD+DRV: One of those people would undoubtably be me given my contributions, so it is difficult to see how I am not being alleged of being a subversive. I believe I made reasonable attempts to comply with Daniel's mainspace entry requirements at the DRV: and if I read that right re-entry to be via either AfC or DRV#3, whichever was likely to cause the least drama. I chose to go with AfC, at least initially, despite the wait. Deletion discussion were rightfully added to the talk page with an ((Old XfD multi)). Full article history is present. Additional sources were presented on the talk page and were commented on by the original AfD nominatorSmartse who particularly challenged me on one source to which I supplied at alternative (albeit unsigned for a long while). AfC reviewer Ingenuity accepted at AfC with congratulations to myself and removing the notability tag from the article. While MichaelMaggs did not initially place a COI declaration on he did respond quickly to a ((uw-coi)) template I placed on his talk page to quote which states "disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI)": given his declaration determining if he has a COI is a coin matter but with the declaration in place my understanding he is perfectly entitled to comment and !vote. It is also unclear to me if a procedural nomination was in order if the matter was not discussed first with the AfC reviewer. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. It's illegitimate, in my view, to warn off from this page editors who have already expressed an opinion that the subject is notable, pre-emptively writing them off with advance allegations of "CoI" or "subversion". How can their actual arguments be heard and weighed properly against the policy requirements of WP:GNG when an admin does that? MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have looked through the sources given. While some of them just make a passing mention, there are several which provide sufficient detail for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Roe. Despite the article having expanded, there still isn't enough in-depth and persistent coverage which is specifically about her. A short article - or even a single sentence - saying "we appointed X to this position at Y organisation" (or, in the case of the Broadcast source being held up as important above, "X has left Y organisation") simply don't cut it. Black Kite (talk)13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Interesting – I wonder if you saw the whole Broadcast article? (All apart from the first sentence becomes hidden by default if you visit the site more than once. You can either register, or try again from another computer). The article covers a lot about her work at BBC Worldwide as well as providing an independent source for Trustee of Tate, appointed by the Prime Minister in July 2007; and elected Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2009. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even that is a short bio of which most is listing what she did for that organisation. I'm sorry, this seems to me like an attempt to get someone an article by flinging every mention of her on the Internet at the article and then claiming that the totality of it adds up to notability, and I don't think it does. Black Kite (talk)07:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the last AfD: Shah is so obviously one of the current "great and the good", perhaps helped by appointing groups desperate to increase diversity, that if we delete this article I doubt it will be too long before we find she's got a life peerage and we're re-creating it for a member of the House of Lords. If she was doing anything scandalous, being booted off these committees ahead of normal expiry times etc, she'd be getting the media coverage which would more clearly make her "notable" in WP terms. As it is, we just have numerous official, reliable, sources, which substantiate her work in various positions ... Ah well. I think she'll be back, even if deleted this time. PamD11:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Toss a coin and maybe fallback to a big brother candidate? Probably not due to 790498507 and as the're RSing she's a Banda at the BLPN but I'd need a librarian to help me cite it. Got the skirt at Wallisdown to the bemusement of skittlers jockeys. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the last AfD, fails GNG. Also fails SIGCOV. The vast majority of the coverage is passing mentions. Article gives a strong impression of Puffery by WP:REFBOMB. The close comment at the DRV noted that this could be draftified and returned to live space "If and when there is sufficient significant reliable sources that addresses the AfD (& DRV) consensus regarding non-notability" and that doesn't appear to me to have been satisfied with this current live version. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the new sources are a one-line mention and Who's Who, which clearly don't resolve the issues from the last AfD/DRV. I don't understand how this got through AfC. Levivich20:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same fundamental problem as before: lots of verifiable facts, but notability is thin. Likely a valuable cog in the bureaucracy, but that's not notability, no matter how many times it's recast as "deserving" of such. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article still lacks proper sourcing specifically about that person. Nothing significant has really changed since last time. The result of the previous AFD and DRV should be upheld. Delete.--Darwinek (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I was a trustee of WMUK many years ago - I've never had any contact with her) a plethora of significant public & private roles, none perhaps individually creating notability, but together I think they do. Independent coverage adequate, & will no doubt grow. As Pam says above, she'll no doubt be in the House of Lords before long, & then even the most die-hard anti-WMUK voices will have to concede notability. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Roe and Black Kite. I restate what I said at the previous AfD: Sources are trivial at best and non-contributory at worst. This is like the articles of many non-notable marketing professionals that litter the archives of AfD. WP:ANYBIO, which I think applies to this article and WP:GNG are not met. Plenty of mentions of this person but little about them. The addition of the sources that one-line mention the subject have the appearance of REFBOMBING. This is a board member with plenty of assignments and appointments, but lacks the strong secondary coverage to demonstrate notability. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the AfD and DRV five months ago. Nothing has changed. Recreation so soon is a subversion of process and community consensus. The sources presented note that she has been appointed to various organisations (many look more like press releases frankly). The sources fail to cover her as an individual in significant detail. I endorse concerns expressed by other editors regarding perceived conflicts of interest and reference bombing. AusLondonder (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically no improvement since the last AfD except some Ref bombing with minor mentions and primary sources. Someday, as a couple people keep saying, she may become part of the House of Lords. THEN we can write an article about her, not before. See WP:CRYSTAL. OrgoneBox (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: delsort India just added which is reasonably necessary to avoid systemic bias in the discussion. It doesn't mean there is significant bias, but it is not unreasonable to believe that the view of work in India might be differently weighted; not to include this lays the discussion open to accusations of bias. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The discussion so far has been fairly vaguewave on sources from both sides, not perhaps helped by the "procedural" nomination but that may be a discussion for DRV with the issue in particular the the AfC was likely not consulted first. Regardless of that we're now into sources, a rolling WP:THREE usually being the best process. I'm a little rushed at this point. (Rosser, 2010 The Broadcast article), (Unwin in the Evening Standard 16 March 2012 and from WP:BLPN#Monisha Shah there is apparently Business India in its May 14–27, 2001 edition on page 160 which apparently said "Take the case of 30-year-old Monisha Shah who was BBC Worldwide's London-based territory manager for South Asia. In less than 16 months this Bandra girl has been promoted to director of BBC Worldwide India Pvt Ltd and her new responsibility is to handle non-news business activities across South Asia." Those wishing delete also do not seem to have considered the possiblity of merging to the article on Samir Shah, her brother. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: The two sentences in Business India are a passing mention. Not nearly enough to contribute to a claim of notability. The Evening Standard piece is an interview, which makes it a primary source... sources must be secondary to count towards notability. OrgoneBox (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions are often inappropriately claimed. I must confess I have not seen the Business India piece myself and cannot be sure if those two sentences in the quote were a bulletpoint entry or part of a wider piece, perhaps Uncle G is able to elaborate. However as the quote starts "Take the case ..." I read the implication more analysis of the content is to follow. Investigative journalists usually select a subject and research background on them and then provide interview quotes making it very clear which is which; and while the interview contents are SPS the other content can be RS. Her author work relating to the significant Hindi "Yes Minister" is reviewed at (Parthsarathy, 2001 (Frontline)) and at (Navqi, 2001) arguable scraping NAUTHOR alone due to uniqueness of that work. It's now difficult to see how Rosser is not regarded as undisputed RS; not how delete !votes couldn't accept the merge but I'd suggest that would be a controversial result viewed outside Wikipedia and might lay claims to systemic bias on a gender basis. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:21, 4 April 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.