Sindhuja Rajaraman: I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:  1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record.  This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours.  This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records.  In the previous nomination , it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source.  Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.  2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities.  This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html  3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.  No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability.  It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago.  Let it rest for a bit.  There is nothing that's changed in a month.  Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination.  Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status.  At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople , Women , Comics and animation ,  and Tamil Nadu .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Delete . Oh wow, the youngest person to .... Please . It's very easy when you're a nepo baby . Bearian ( talk ) 13:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion is not an option as it was JUST at a previous AFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Last nomination was one month ago. Bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think the closer made a mistake. And significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Christian75 ( talk ) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You might have missed the note on Last nomination --> Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 22:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please note that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 explicitly allowed the renom. Suggest a focus on content and not process. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : For my part I'm not seeing anything recent or meeting RS about this subject, and I'm not satisfied with the applied or presented sources meeting WP:BLP. Reading the DRV leads me to believe there is not much community support for keeping (as the side comments in this process might lead one to believe). BusterD ( talk ) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the previous AfD found coverage spanning a period from 2011 to 2019. 8 years is too long of an "event" to invoke WP:BLP1E and the nature of the "event" in this case is not well defined. The fact that there has not been significant coverage since 2019 is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The nominator has a strong rationale as also illustrated in prev AfD. Issues of churnalism/promo remain in sources. Current GoogleSearch brings out heavy PR stuff. Would refrain form making any personal comments about the subject. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus