Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah

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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monisha Shah

[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'm unable to find any sources that indicate WP:BIO is met. The sources cited are mainly primary sources, with some very brief mentions in secondary sources. Per the article talk page, the article only appears to have been created because she is the chair of the board at Wikimedia UK but as we should all know, notability is not inherited. SmartSE (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Then it must be delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Spiderone, why not the UK list, since she has lived in UK since a child?
Delete I agree with Smartse; can't see evidence of notability at a glance. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to wquestions of notability , I would consider G11. This is indistinguishable from any other promotional bio.I note especially the puffery in the infobox, and the irrelevant "family" section. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously? "In previous roles, she has served as Trustee of the Donmar Warehouse, Tate, Foundling Museum and the National Gallery. Her last full-time executive role was at BBC Worldwide, where she worked for 10 years before stepping down in 2010.... In December 2015, Monisha was invited by the Prime Minister to join the Committee on Standards in Public Life" (6/7 current members here have bios). That's easily notable; these are very heavyweight positions. I wouldn't quite argue that being a trustee of the National Gallery gives a presumption of notability, but it's pretty close. Johnbod (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: Johnbod is a former member of WMUK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh my Gaaaaaad!! That's terrible!!! Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering that until yesterday when it was pointed out at WP:COIN you had a WMUK userbox on your userpage, and we're dealing with the current chair of WMUK its worth pointing out yes. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 07:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Member of Committee on Standards in Public Life and assorted high-power memberhips and trusteeships, clearly prominent in UK public life. PamD 08:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the artice on Committee on Standards in Public Life is out of date and does not show the current membership (noted on talk page) but she served a term there although not a current member. PamD 08:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bureaucrat in a notable organisation isn't automatically notable. The positions Johnbod and PamD list don't seem to have led to any significant coverage in secondary sources. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - putting the COI issue aside for now, this person does not appear to be notable. Like Joe Roe above, I could find no significant coverage about her in secondary sources, and none of the positions held currently or previously appear to confer a presumption of notability. firefly ( t · c ) 11:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and PamD. I'm a member of WMUK, but that is hardly relevant; to the best of my knowledge have never interacted with Monisha Shah, who was clearly notable before her WMUK role. Her entry at [1] alone shows sufficient roles to warrant an entry in Wikipedia; and that "In 2009, she was elected Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum." There is further coverage in [2], [3], [4], [5], & [6]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these rationales have any basis in policy. Feel free to create WP:IMPORTANTJOB if you like, but if someone is important, they receive significant coverage. Let's examine the coverage you link to:
  - [7] Monisha Shah was the only non-white member of the committee – but she stepped down earlier this year
  - [8] The departure of Monisha Shah and the appointments of Ewen Fergusson and Professor Gillian Peele in July left the eight-strong committee all-white for the first time since at least 2015
  - [9] Shah is chair of Rose Bruford College of Theatre and Performance, in London. She is also a trustee of ArtFund, an independent fundraising charity for art. She was previously director of sales for emerging markets at BBC Worldwide. She is a member of the government’s Committee on Standards in Public Life, which works on ethical standards in public life in England. Note that this is a student newspaper, so of little use for demonstrating notability.
  - [10] The judges .... Monisha Shah, media consultant
  - [11] Monisha Shah, an independent media consultant.
- Apart from Varsity, these are all extremely brief and trivial mentions, far from WP:SIGCOV. SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, she also has an entry in Who's Who. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Re: Who's Who, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It is a reference work with information mainly collected from the people concerned. Editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source." Edwardx (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That relates to the content of the work; nevertheless, she is regarded as significant enough to warrant an entry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whilst it may be an improvement on the others, by itself, it is still not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV as it is only a single source. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no GNG sources, end of story. Smh at a WMUK member in here arguing Who's Who, have some dignity. Levivich 14:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as original creator of the article, with a declared potential COI). I have added some more references including several secondary sources which are independent of the organisations where she has severed as a trustee. Her contribution to civil society in the UK, through a range of public sector and charitable bodies, is considerably greater than many sports or pop music biographies although these tend to gain greater coverage in the popular press.— Rod ^talk 15:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and all other standards. Editors with COI should not vote in AfDs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not meet GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SmartSE's analysis. 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. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note Future (and recent) commenters (and the closer) should view this version of the article, and not the stub to which it has just been farcically reduced. I've noted some of the worst removals on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, shredding an article in a tendentious way during the Afd process is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's quite normal to trim poorly sourced parts of an article while it is at AfD, so you can see if what is left is worth saving. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, but we're not discussing "poorly sourced parts of an article", as the linked talk page discussion makes clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Come off it, Joe - this, removing about 30 sources, many of the highest quality, is not] a "trim [of] poorly sourced parts of an article". Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - John which sources specifically are you referring to as "of the highest quality” I don’t believe that I removed a single instance of significant coverage from an independent WP:RS. I assume you don’t mean Amazon [12] OFCOM meeting minutes [13] an opinion piece on a blog [14] and numerous press releases? Note that you mischaracterize the diff you use as its an amalgam that includes [15] which was a revert on COI grounds. Also in the future if you’re going to attack me at least have the decency to tag me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) Are you seriously suggesting that ONLY sources directly relevant to a GNG debate belong in an article at all? Totally unbelievable!! Got any policy support for that?? Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What makes you think I’m suggesting that? I’m saying that I don’t believe that any of the sources I removed were "of the highest quality” as you have asserted. Also please remember that you have a COI so for your own sake please keep it civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        A government website is a reliable source for biographical information about a government appointee. Where is your rule which says we cannot trust the government's site for information about other aspects of her life? PamD 20:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of some notability whatsoever.--Darwinek (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jip Orlando. The person is not notable and there is no significant coverage even if some WMUK members say otherwise. Votes of WMUK members should not be given weight because of COI issues. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 23:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no significant coverage of this person in independent reliable sources. And the COI issues here stink to high heaven. Inf-in MD (talk)
Delete Great credentials, brilliant CV but non-notable as per Wiki guidelines. It is common for folks to perceive high achieving individuals as notable which is not true. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nomadicghumakkad's excellent summary. Highly accomplished, but not notable. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 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, most of which sources have been removed on the basis that we can't rely on the "self-published source" (aka official website) of a reputable organisation to support anything about her except for her position within that organisation, which seems a bizarre interpretation of "self-published sources". I'd rather trust a gov.uk page than many newspapers. Ah well. I think she'll be back, even if deleted this time. PamD 21:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plus for most of the time she has been a senior executive at the BBC (where somebody got the idea that she is a public relations person is beyond me, like much on this page), who don't encourage such people to have a personal media profile. Unlike the nonentities with PR agents who clutter up WP. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Andy Mabbett et al with the standards committee being particularly relevant, as are BBC roles. Wikimedia chair or whatever is relatively irrelevant but should not place at a disadvantage. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real indication of notability. Arguments in favor of keeping seem mainly around the fact that she ranks highly in the bureaucracy of notable organizations and does useful work. But neither of those are really notability guidelines; a Wikipedia entry is not an award given for good service. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:00, 26 November 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.