Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archana Patil

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. While the nomination itself has been started by a sock, editors in good standing uniformly comment that the subject doesn't pass our notability guidelines, after two relists there's no opposing opinion, so deleting. —SpacemanSpiff 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patil[edit]

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

Reason : Article is of low importance. Person is not well known or notable. Against wiki policies.TrulyFan (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2017 (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/2017 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not per nom. The nom seems a new editor with relatively less (or perhaps no) idea of how to nom. Despite my initial assumption that the nomination was faulty (based on the nom statement), I've not been able to find reliable sources to support notability of the individual on GNG/SNG/BASIC. This can be deleted. Lourdes 06:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a link to a clip of audiovisual material on the IndiaTV YouTube channel from March 2016 which is not in English but in which she appears as part of a feature recorded for Women's Day. Otherwise there is a lack of reliable sources in the article and a I didn't come across any in a brief search. Some awards are mentioned in the article but there is nothing to indicate that any of these are high-profile. As such, she hasn't demonstrated notability when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Care must also be taken as it looks like there's at least one other Archana Patil who does get good Gnews results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator was banned today for sockpuppetry for possibly running a political campaign from multiple accounts. Does WP:SK#4 apply here @SpacemanSpiff: ? ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c. Nope. Spaceman has much more experience on India related topics than I have. So he may differ on this (or probably not). Lourdes 16:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other afds that I closed for obvious disruption, this one has valid comments from editors in good standing, so I don't think this should be closed on that basis. —SpacemanSpiff 14:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've searched again and even gone to my library to see if there's something that can be made of this article. Unfortunately, still can't find anything. Would refer to WP:BIODEL for the closing admin, as there is none opposing the deletion of this article. Thanks. Lourdes 04:41, 22 January 2017 (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.