Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poonam Pandey

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 September 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Arguments that she is notable, including the various sources provided here and in the article, are more convincing than arguments that she is not notable. -Scottywong | chat _ 18:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Pandey

This non-notable person has no significant achievement in her self proclaimed modelling career. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. She is definitely one of the most prominent persons in the Indian media- print, internet,including videos. All this makes her famous. Being famous has nothing to do with being significant. A lot of people search for her and this page can be made better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netfunk (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Netfunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Sadly, "achievement" is not the same as "notability"; Poonam Pandey is a likely search target and this article will almost certainly become better-sourced (sources are plentiful if relatively vacuous). --→gab 24dot grab← 16:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If it was just the calendar and the appearance on Fear Factor, I'd go with a delete, but the coverage about the false claims of a movie appearance are the tipping point for me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete.But the coverage was about "false claims". doesn't it make this person a non-significant or non-notable actor or model? it weakens her notability.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Salih (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill model and "reality show" contestant. The stuff about false claims is just a third bite at the apple of 15 minutes of fame (pardon the mixed metaphor). Bearian (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill and lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are the delete votes above based upon even the most cursory of searches, such as using the Google News link above in this AfD discussion? Topic passes WP:GNG per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hit count doesn't demonstrate notability. None of those provide the kind of significant coverage WP:BIO is looking for. As another editor points out above, these are brief stories about false claims. If there were some in depth coverage out there, I'd be willing to change my !vote. Until then this looks like a reality show contestent interested only in attention. Wikipedia is not here to further that cause.--RadioFan (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My !vote doesn't discuss Google hit numbers, because hit counts typically don't confer much toward topic notability. Each source in my !vote above is entirely about Poonam Pandey's career, actions and events, and some of them are not "brief"; rather, they are mostly "medium-sized", although a few are short. They certainly are not all stories about false claims, as suggested in the comment above. Did the person commenting directly above this comment actually read the articles? This topic also passes WP:BASIC, which states (in part) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." "Trivial coverage" in the WP:GNG policy refers to the notion of passing mentions in articles, (from GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.") which these articles are not comprised of. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My comment addresses the significance of each of the links you provide above. I and others in this AFD do not agree that these demonstrate significant coverage. This coupled with the fact that this scant coverage is about apparently false claims of notability makes it difficult for this subject to pass WP:BIO at this time.--RadioFan (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian and RadioFan. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, clearly meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Why are we still having this discussion? JulesH (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet the GNG with sources already present in article. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most downloaded model according to google and has enough coverage in media to pass notability-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:13, 14 May 2012 (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.