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 Snow Keep. Obvious Keep is obvious (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suvra Mukherjee (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)

Not a Notable Person KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 07:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As a First Lady, she seems borderline, but the sources so far are WP:OBITUARY. We would need better sources to justify keeping her bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Questionable notability. Without more sources I don't think this passes WP:ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG. She's covered before her death due to her work with classical dance and as the wife of a prominent politician.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Megalibrarygirl.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even considering deleting an article on the first lady of a major country shows a troubling lack of awareness of systemic bias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further checking, in HighBeam, shows plenty of coverage in RS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator claims to be Indian. So I doubt this is case of systemic bias. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there are no sexists in India? And are Piotrus and Chris Troutman Indian? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were implying bias based on geography. Point noted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Serving as first lady of a major nation is, of itself, notable (see, e.g. Category:First Ladies of the United States) Adequat indicia of RS sources affirming notability. Not all bias is systemic, it can also be political. Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable deceased person. — Cirt (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems self-evident that if every single first lady of the United States is notable, then so too is any first lady of the world's second-most populous nation. Let's keep in mind that this is a global encyclopedia. Owlsmcgee (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2015 (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.