Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manisha Ogale

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. ✗plicit 14:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Ogale

[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)

As per User:discospinster theory, all Guinness World Records and Limca Book of Records holders are paid. The Guinness World Records will authenticate any record that someone pays them to (see Guinness World Records#Change in business model). Likewise with the Limca Book of Records, which is basically a way for them to promote themselves. They do not pass notability criteria. Please Check here.

Does not meet standards of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Awards won do not rise to the level required. Johnson Wagart (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Johnson Wagart (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Johnson Wagart (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Johnson Wagart (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search turned up sketchy sources (e.g. blogspot) and not much else. I am more than happy to sign onto the "Guiness World Records mean nothing" policy movement, so ping me when we move to deprecate that 'award'. --- Possibly ☎ 03:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Myself and Possibly butt head over policy, but their rationale here is spot on, I’m in total agreement with their rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not the Guiness Book of World Records. We do not create articles on things that are just silly, unless they receive the actual level of independent coverage to make them notable. As explain above these world records books are often not indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2021 (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.