Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindhu Pamarthi

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bindhu Pamarthi[edit]

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

Pamarthi is only notable for being Miss Washington DC and that is not enough to make one notable. The news coverage is passing, and largely from non-reliable sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The founder of Wikipedia loves the free lunch, making us do all the work for him for free. We need to be aware of how we are being used as pawns by businessmen to promote themselves. We also need to be aware of our staying power in the big chess game of consumerism.2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NMODEL, and the above comment by the IP isn't a valid reason to keep the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Emir of Wikipedia has a personal grudge against me, which can be seen from the history of his "contributions" to Wikipedia on his page. (He has been following me around, and contacting me.) That is not a valid reason to vote to delete an article about a notable person. Anti-Indian sentiment is not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable person. Bindhu Pamarthi's platform was call ed "makeup makeover". She campaigned to encourage corporations, consumers, and legislators around the world to elect alternatives to animal testing in the cosmetics industry she stood up for lab animals. This makes her a hero. She is not a misandrist. What does Emir of Wikipedia care for animals being used by the cosmetics industry? He only cares about totally unimportant princes, who owe their social status to their birth - and nothing else! But are they famous? No! No! And no! So why is this Irish clown trying to make them famous?2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC) This user has now been blocked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. A vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search only brings up Miss District of Columbia. The degree of significance is not enough to provide notability for a BLP article, evidenced by "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:GNG), in more than a single event (WP:BIO1E). If kept this ultimately means the article would be relegated to a permanent stub pseudo-biography. Otr500 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly normal article, no reason to think this is a hoax or to doubt that multiple reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG have reported on this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the other editors comments I am puzzled as to why there was mention of "no reason to think this is a hoax". I gave my assessment based on the "sources", being referred to above as "multiple reliable sources". The first reference certainly would be considered reliable about Miss D.C. Winner Bindhu Pamarthi. The second, a primary source of "missdc.org", Meet Miss DC 2013. The third is also "missdc.org" states Bindhu Pamarthi crowned Miss DC 2013. The fourth, used in two different places, is a dead link (not found), and is also a primary source. Since primary sources can not be used to advance notability the "multiple reliable sources" dwindle to one. Even if counting all four as "multiple reliable sources" three reference the same Miss DC and one, the dead primary link, is about "2012 Miss Johnston County". This might be alright (if it worked) for content but has two strikes against being used to advance notability, 1)- being a primary source about 2)- a local event. It would not matter if there were 25 references, because it is not the number that counts, so if they all reference Miss DC 2013 there would still be only the one event, which is the case here. Otr500 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a paperless encyclopedia with no current identified limits on storage capacity, and in fact the technology of storage has increased enormously since Wikipedia was founded. "Not a hoax" is one of the bars for inclusion of topics on Wikipedia. How does deleting this article improve the encyclopedia?

The references in the article must be reliable, but they are not how we define notability, as notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.

Article content does not determine notability

Shortcuts

WP:ARTN
WP:CONTN

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

WP:BEFORE D1 turns up a variety of sources, including those from India, UK, USA Today, Spanish language DC based El Tiempo Latino, Washington Post, New York City, Houston, Oregon, New Jersey, and North Carolina and I could go on. Any implication that this is only a hoax, or that the world at large has not noticed this topic, is without merit. Otherwise, without dismissing that other policies and guidelines might apply, our policy is to protect the work of our peers who are doing the work to create our articles. The nutshell of WP:Editing policy states, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it)." Unscintillating (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO, the first is a guideline and the second is an essay, and neither are deletion arguments...merge and redirect are not deletion arguments as per WP:ATD.
As for your 1Event argument, there are a couple of ways to look at this. One is that it is a stretch to call two pageants in North Carolina, a pageant in DC, the crown jewel of pageants in Atlantic City, and a one-year reign as Miss Washington DC, which includes multiple public appearances, as one event. The other is that the remedy for a 1Event argument is a merge. What would be the merge target? We could get into an abstract discussion about whether this topic should be listed as part of a set of mini-bios, but such would be a content discussion about a merge which as per WP:Deletion policy should be discussed on talk pages or possibly at RfC; whereas AfD stands for "Articles for Deletion" and is a forum for problems that need administrator's tools. Unscintillating (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a BLP1E. I don't see coverage other than the pageant and we have seen at multiple afds that winning a state pageant and participating in Miss America doesn't make a contestant notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it fails BLP1E. It's clearly not a hoax, but as nobody said it was, that's not particularly relevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2016 (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.