Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anitha Sampath (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anitha Sampath[edit]

[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 actress and news anchor. Already considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anitha Sampath, and does not appear to have any new accomplishments in last two months.

Naïve Google search shows that she exists; we knew that. Part of this article appears to have been copied from https://www.thewikifeed.com/anitha-sampath/ Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Only coverage is regarding her being a contestant at Big Boss. I am unsure if being a reality TV show participant adds to your notability claims. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G4 would've been the better option. There is nothing substantial in the article and a due before didn't help much? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment to User:TheAafi - I didn't have access to the original article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is way too fast of a recreation of the article to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2020 (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.