Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurpreet Kaur Chadha


 * 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 Speedy Deleted (G11) by Seraphimblade. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Gurpreet Kaur Chadha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * No apparent significant coverage in reliable sources. Only trivial coverage seems to be available such as gossip with passing mentions and photos with passing mentions.
 * This topic fails WP:BIO and the lack of quality sourcing means this fails GNG and WP:BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete non-notable low level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: A substantially promotional article, which is not surprising as it is largely copied from the subject's own website. The sources are poor and my searches are not finding better. Neither her public activity nor the coverage indicates encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources are not reliable sources - her own website and a bunch of SPS. There is nothing available about the subject in the major Indian newspapers. The page is also extremely promotional. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Beside notability concerns, the whole piece not only reads promotional but there are also some copyvio issues. I just G11 and G12 it. This !vote remains here in case speedy is declined. Anup   [Talk]  22:20, 18 October 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.