Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geetanjali Babbar


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Geetanjali Babbar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination for Фред-Продавец звёзд who loaded added the rationale to an AfD that I had started here. The reasoning was: ''Article without any normal sources, with very bad style, with non-working links to YouTube. More than: this page was created in the BBC special olympic raid "against sexism, rasism etc". Not a normal article. '' I am neutral on the outcome of this debate TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I've done what I can. It seems the subject meets notability criteria. For the record, there were "normal" sources (Times of India, Digital Empowerment Foundation). "Very bad style" and general formatting is poor rationale for deletion. I think we can work on this more and bring it up to standards. The BBC editathon is about women, not sexism and racism. I've reviewed several of the other articles and while they needed cleanup, they otherwise appeared to satisfy inclusion criteria. I feel this one is no different &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * keep - passes WP:GNG --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has enough sources to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate 's neutrality and helping another Wikipedian bring an article to the attention of the editing community. However, I wonder if our time wouldn't be better served by instructing users like about how to tag an article for problems and how to do WP:BEFORE. Bringing an article that has problems to AfD but has enough sources out there to pass GNG is a waste of time, IMO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * as a general principle, I think unexperienced users should be helped to bring articles to AfD when they clearly are trying to do that. In this case, I do agree with you that further review from the community probably would not be merited after the cleanup done and think that if an admin is passing by, a snow keep is probably in order here, especially considering the original nominator has not provided additional reasoning. I have also struck my neutral vote from the nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I understand where you're coming from. I'm just really big on teaching WP:BEFORE because it often clears things up before AfD. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Sorry, I didn't !vote in my comment above. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 04:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , you actually did !vote. Strike? TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I sure did. Boy I'm tired! :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep-- Substantial improvements have occurred after the nomination. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:49, 15 December 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.