Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Priyambada

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. Obvious socks discounted. Sandstein 10:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Priyambada

[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)

promotional article on model. Actress with no major roles, and I think consensus is that a title of Mrs. Global India is not necessarily or even usually notable . The references are the usual PR associated with such activities. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepShringhringshring (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) — Shringhringshring (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom along with Draft:Priya Priyambada just sent to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I was about to decline an identical page in draft space, but this BLP is in both article space and draft space, a common way of trying to game the system. Does not satisfy acting notability. If this article is deleted, the draft should also be deleted. If this article is kept, the draft can become a redirect. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Priya Priyambada. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 20:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because scholarly article and Ongoing Coverage is equivalent to Notablity , she seems to have enough coverage to get verified and an wiki article Jaydenchandel (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Jaydenchandel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, per Sources which do indicate notability within the platform it is posted on, For me keeping the article Seems reasonable Soundfrea (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Soundfrea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep Satisfies WP:GNG news portals like Zee News , Kathmandu tribune and amarujala posts represent significant Coverage about the subject in reliable sources Wikiblooded (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Wikiblooded (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Notable enough to have an Article , have coverage also so its a keep from me Meridazen (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Meridazen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.