Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B chandrakala

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. After being relisted twice there's still not as much discussion as I would like for a clear cut case, however, the consensus here is Keep even if they're not strictly policy based arguments... (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B chandrakala[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)

Not notable person under wikipedia gidelines.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The original editor has posted many articles on other politicians written in the same style. I would appreciate if someone more familiar with India than I am look at them to see if they are wiki worthy. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not well written, but even a cursory seach suggests she is well known. [1] --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, This article needs improve and attention, not deletion. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I I've made significant improvements/rework to the article and added a couple of references. There are sufficient sources to show significant coverage over an extended period of time. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:28, 26 April 2019 (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.