Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshul Jubli

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Jubli[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)

Ranked 211 as of January 2023. Sources are not significant as they only mention his fights, nothing in-depth. Likely WP:TOOSOON. CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already includes sources that are indepth and don't just mention his fights, example [1] [2] [3] HeinzMaster (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is notable enough to have his Wikipedia article since he's the first MMA fighter from India to win a UFC match. Citation [4] [5] [6] — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 10:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This sub seems notable, he recently won a UFC contract due to he got significant coverage in Indian media. I myself wrote two articles about him on WP buy someone moved them into draft space see - Anshul Jubli. I provided more then 7 reliable refs there to prove notablity.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrote 2 articles about him and they were moved to draft space, what does that tell you? I also see keep comments saying there are in-depth sources. However, I do not see any of them as being notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HeinzMaster. Adequate sourcing exists. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject satisfies GNG with plenty of coverage by reliable independent sources. TOOSOON isn’t a concern here. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2023 (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.