Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mugdha Vaishampayan (2nd nomination)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mugdha Vaishampayan

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

my original nomination stands. overly promotional, and lacks reliable sources to meet WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews [1] despite the glowing claims of the article. the sourcing contains many unreliable sources. note that the last AfD was surprisingly visited by a high number of single purpose editors. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tentative keep I must have missed this one last time around. The nominator is correct about the promotional tone, but such concern is a correctable issue and something I have myself begun to address... no, not done yet, but begun.[2] The subject appears to be creeping up on WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:MUSIC, even if not in the United States or in English, and notability to Maharashtra (at nearly 100 million in 2001, the second most populous State in India) is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. In the spirit of curbing our systemic bias, and as en.Wikipedia does not seem to have many Marathi-reading Wikipedians, I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to some of the Marathi language sources[3] as I work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons mentioned last time. She has competed in a notable competition(placing in the top five even), done a theme song for a notable show, and other things already brought up. The nominator should not be nominating the same article for deletion again just because he didn't get the results he wanted last time. WP:MUSIC 9. "Has won or placed in a major music competition." 10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show" Dream Focus 10:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been significantly improved since the last AfD, and in fact apparently significantly improved since this (current) AfD began. It now appears to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG in my view. And per MichaelQSchmidt. -- œ ^™ 04:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per Dust, and per the unanimous reaction of all other editors to this nomination (with me, we have an aggregate of 162,000 edits among us, so I don't think there is any real world concern about this !vote being shanghaied by SPAs). Furthermore, notability does not evaporate over time. Suggest this be snowed, so editors can spend their time more fruitfully elsewhere, as the result of this AfD is clear and keeping it open longer just wastes everyones' time. Furthermore -- note to nom .. AfD is not a forum for addressing your concerns about an article putatively being overly promotional.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2011 (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.