Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pranati Rai Prakash

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. (non-admin closure) — Zawl 07:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pranati Rai Prakash (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)

Hi. The subject is not notable. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am looking at the references given on the article, and it seems that the subject meets WP:GNG. There are two articles listed in the references section- specifically, the ones from India Today (1) and The Indian Express (3) that look to me like reliable sources giving substantial coverage independent of the subject. The websites do look reliable to me, however I suggest that someone more experienced double check. I do not see any obvious WP:NOT violations. I will admit that this article has syntax issues (for example, the aforementioned India Today article has been listed again in (4) in the references section). I will fix what I know how to fix, but overall, I do not see any notability issues. 24.47.109.192 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@24.47.109.192: There is no coverage over the medium or long term (sources over 2 years minimum). --Panam2014 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the closer of this discussion, this thread continued on my talk page. --24.47.109.192 (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - winner of a notable reality TV series Spiderone 10:46, 25 August 2017 (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.