Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjali Phougat (2nd nomination)

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. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Phougat

[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)

Doesn't appear to be notable, also was deleted previously. AmirŞah 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Fashion. AmirŞah 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Sources appear to be sufficient to provide notability under WP:NBIO, though the language barrier may be preventing me from doing a full breadth check. (However, if this is an exact copy of the previously deleted article I'm all for a WP:G4.) Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete browsing through the sources (I've even removed some) this is nothing more than the effort of a PR person to get her name out there - both our article and the majority of the sources. They're almost entirely churnalism or blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Prax pointed out, this is an evidently PR-driven article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current sources in article are covering context of article and unreliable sources was removed by Praxidicae. Meets WP:NBIO. Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - similar to my !vote in the previous AfD discussion, based on my WP:BEFORE and a review of the article and its sources, it continues to appear to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability to be supported by independent and reliable sources. During my search for sources, I found a 2021 Deccan Herald interview with some biographical content that appears independent, with an overall focus on her Cannes award, a 2021 Tribune interview with secondary content essentially limited to the headline, a brief 2021 Tribune interview where she offers advice to youth, and a brief statement from her about her mother in a 2021 Free Press Journal article. In the WP article, there is a glowing but vague 2021 profile with no byline from APN News (e.g. the profile: "She has designed outfits and has been involved in a number of fashion events such as the New York Fashion Week, Miss New Jersey and so on. Her works have featured in Miss India contests as well" which can be compared to the current WP:CLOP in the article); based on a quick scan of APN related articles, this outlet appears to package product promotion as news. Beccaynr (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject doesn't seem to be notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. DMySon (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lacks notability, WP:NBASIC. RS6784 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 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.