Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Kavitha

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. Kavitha[edit]

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

I'm not sure on this one; I did Prod it but an editor contested it and added extra detail. I am still not sure the current work establishes notability. Her main claim to notability is a famous father K. Chandrasekhar Rao. Beyond that there are a couple of references regarding one incident in 2009 and "village adoption" work from 2006. The main reference to support her notability [1] strikes me as a tabloid rumor piece. As I said at the start - am divided on this one, so I'm throwing it to AFD for consensus. Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93khttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K._Kavitha&action=edit&section=T-1 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has caused enough ruckus to meet WP:GNG. I am sure there is much more coverage in Telugu media. Sibling rivalry in a political dynasty gets a lot of local coverage. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems POV-laden and needing a fix if the article is kept. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (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.