Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naaz Joshi

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. —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naaz Joshi

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

Tagged for notability concerns. This seems to be a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not the news. Most of the sources provided do not provide significant coverage and use exactly the same wording. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 00:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being on the cover of a magazine is not a claim of notability that satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion criterion in and of itself. She might potentially qualify for an article on the basis of whatever achievement made her a person that the magazine would want to feature on its cover — but this article as written just rests her notability on the magazine cover itself, and doesn't even begin to suggest what the "why she made the cover" part of the story would be. And even the sources are all just blurbs which just describe her as a "popular transgender", without actually including any nouns to suggest what she's popular for. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually write and source a substantive article which actually makes a substantive claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, and most of the sources are just copies of each other. WP:NOTNEWS as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As pointed out above, it's a clear case of WP:BLP1E, backed by essentially just one source. Favonian (talk) 11:41, 8 July 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.