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. SouthernNights (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Ayyub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Writer of it page are blocked permanently. It was the stocking work by them. This lady is not fall in Wikipedia:Notability. It is also under WP:GRAPEVINE because firstpost.com is not news channel or news company. They are writing views and topic on their own interest. Most of political articles are one sided. So please remove this article. Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep? ... Speedy keep? - I'm not sure if there's a deletion rationale in there or not, but not only does the person appear to be easily notable, their book on it's own appears to be notable too. I really don't know one way or the other what the reliability of firstpost.com is but there seems to be a few thousands of alternatives available if the article needs better sourcing. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Timothyjosephwood: I couldn't understand your point. You want to keep this article or not? NehalDaveND (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject is notable. For example: Huffington Post, The Wire, BBC. News search alone returns about 16,000 sources. TimothyJosephWood 17:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep as the subject (and the books she has authored) has been covered extensively by the Indian media. I feel that this nomination has not been done in good faith, since the nominator seems to have a bias against Ayyub and FirstPost (I'm not even sure how FirstPost is relevant to the article). The nominator should read WP:GNG properly before making frivolous AfD requests like this. — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rana Ayyub was in the news (2011 2013 2014 2015) even before she authored and published the much talked about Gujarat Files in 2016 (The Hindu Hindustan Times Business Standard The Times of India Frontline The Telegraph Mint Deccan Chronicle Huffington Post Elle). Then in 2017, well, she is a celebrity (Femina NDTV Khaleej Times). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The subject is notable journalist, a regular columnist and panelist. ChunnuBhai (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment firstpost.com is a reliable news source. ChunnuBhai (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep This article is about a notable female author and investigative journalist. Her one of the stories has been considered amongst The 20 Greatest Magazine Stories. Considering this, keeping of this article is strongly suggested. ^[1] Xscontrib (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously notable. Reliably sources.--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG for coverage in reliable sources as shown by Biwom and by what is in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Mar4d (talk) 10:33, 21 April 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.