Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooja Pihal

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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Pihal

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

Questionably notable as the best my searches found was this, this, this and this and I'm not seeing anything to suggest better and obvious attention and improvement. Pinging Derek R Bullamore and author Chander. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this

The Times of India - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

Filmibeat [8], [9], [10], [11]

India TV, [12]

Mid Day [13], [14], [15], [16]

~~Zee News [17] - Ch an der 16:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)~~ per WP:SOCKSTRIKE §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of throwing a bund of links you need to tell how the subject meets WP's notability guideline. You posted similar link-list on another AfD. Also, Filmibeat is not RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, per a review of news media sources posted above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @SwisterTwister: Do you feel that the sources presented in this discussion demonstrate notability for the subject? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely although the sourcing is not as fruitful as it could be. Although this may be close to closing, I'll keep this open if others want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At least one user has been blocked for paid editing. I'd suggest more scrutiny by experienced editors. slakr^\ talk / 03:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 8 November 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.