Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asha Bhat (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 keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Bhat

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

The subject is known only for a single event and that event is not a recognised or remarkably known event. The page is full of irrelevant biographical stuff. IMHO the subject does not meet WP:GNG and the article looks like WP:SPIP. Notability is also not backed up by independent sources. Hence I propose for deletion. Bharathiya (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say that the sourcing could be better but that Globalbeauties are an independent and in my opinion third party source unrelated to the pageant. Miss Supranational is an established pageant today. AfD is not a clean-up service and article quality does not trump overall notability. WP:GNG as winner if a televised event. Plus noted modelling career.BabbaQ (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage in trade puiblications about beauty contests is not enough to show a beauty queen is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally no fan of these shows or TV in general, but subject easily passes the WP:GNG. I agree with nominator Bharathiya and BabbaQ that the article needs improvement, however, that is no rationale for deletion. gidonb (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How? BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that the article needs cleanup; we don't need to list where she's all been, but impressive news coverage in India. Running an NGO also seems notable. = paul2520 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All it takes is a glance at the extensive sources to see this is notable.Egaoblai (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage is present, notability has been established. WP:GNG is passed. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because despite the page needs improvement, this model, activist clearly passes WP:GNG. The sources used are largely established sources, and delete !votes here didn't come with any convincing argument. — Ammarpad (talk)

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.