Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve's Weekly Miss India
- 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. MBisanz talk 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Eve's Weekly Miss India
- Eve's Weekly Miss India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The magazine this is associated with doesn't even appear to meet WP:GNG notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, I know it's running 3-0, but nobody has gone into any detail about why they believe notability hasn't been established, so I'm going to leave this open another week in the hopes we get some more thoughtful comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Yes, I know it's running 3-0, but nobody has gone into any detail about why they believe notability hasn't been established, so I'm going to leave this open another week in the hopes we get some more thoughtful comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Eeesh. Exactly how many words do you need to see to convey the sentiment of "This subject doesn't meet the GNG?" I mean, I could write a sentence saying that there is not a single reliable source in the article, or I could write a sentence saying that this is a likely redirect to Miss India, or I could write a sentence saying that at this remove reliable sources discussing this subpageant in "significant detail" aren't likely to appear. Since when do you need an essay to close an AfD with unanimous sentiment to Delete? Nha Trang Allons! 20:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.