Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanne Pandey

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. After much-extended time for discussion (and discounting the precocious IP), there is no clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 00:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Pandey

[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)

non-notable, running mentions, WP:INVALIDBIO WP:BIOFAMILY User4edits (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, India, Maharashtra, and Scotland. User4edits (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 7 isn't even about this person. Source 4 is fine, but wanting to look like her isn't exactly the type of article used for notability. Rest doesn't help coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator neglected to adhere to WP:BEFORE. The subject of this nomination is a best-selling author of multiple books and a basic Google News search for Deanne Pandey reveals a substantial number of articles, such as this (among others), unequivocally meeting the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. It is hoped that the nominator and the initial voter are not engaged in any form of sockpuppetry within this context. 1.23.251.79 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DNA? I've not heard of that source and it links to a blank page. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DNA (Daily News and Analysis) a major news portal, and it's not the only source supporting the topic. If you had conducted a WP:BEFORE check before casting your vote, you would have discovered numerous additional articles, including those from Business Standard, NDTV, Hindustan Times, Midday, and many others. 1.23.251.79 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are brief articles, third one is a name drop, fourth is about her and Michael Phelps, which isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources mentioned above establish notablity well in my opinion. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy overturn and relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1.23.251.79 appears to be a WP:SPA familiar with WP:POLICIES but contributions only to save this DR and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikki Panday (Both Pandey/Panday are married) See Special:Contributions/1.23.251.79

Odd that they're intimately familiar with wiki policies but edit while logged out. Would be helpful if they were logged in. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @User4edits and @Oaktree b. unable to see in-depth SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per WP:GNG since the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as DNA, HT, Midday etc. as pointed out above by anon. Almost all of these sources provide in-depth coverage of her and her work. GSS ^💬 07:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked through all the provided and applied sources, and I think this is a very marginal case. IMHO, there's simply not enough direct detailing to support anything more than the single sentence in the article. It seems the template for all of these articles is usage of the minimum of text and the maximum of images of the subject. Routine entertainment news. This is a BLP. At this point, we don't meet that high bar for sourcing. BusterD (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're suggesting that this (300 words article) by DNA India, this (350 words article) by the Time of India, along with this one in the Bengali language by Ananda Bazar, are inadequate to establish notability? These are reliable independent articles that delve directly into her personal life and career in detail, as required by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Additionally, this interview, among other, can be used to expand the article. GSS ^💬 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article and cited some more sources. GSS ^💬 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above and a large-scale content expansion by GSS. She is a "national bestselling" author, Apart from that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that make her pass BASIC & GNG. Note: I am the creator of the article.- FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 14:40, 9 March 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.