Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ameena case

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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ameena case[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines.Mostly a press release. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lakun.patra, "May not be notable"? Why, how many Google books mention this case? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It definitely is notable. I've added many sources in the meanwhile, nominator may want to take a look at. I'm not sure if WP:BEFORE was performed in this case. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Nominationas it is notable as per references provided by In ictu oculi and Anup mehera.Lakun.patra (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2014 (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.