Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooja Gurung


 * 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   delete. All deletes with some commments that didn't not change the consensus Nja 247 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pooja Gurung

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability has not been asserted within the article. Associated acts are non notable itself. Apart from that, its Unreferenced and Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Hitro 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If no reason has been given for notability, this should go to speedy deletion. Setwisohi (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this article has been hanging around for more than 6 months and been edited by 3 or 4 different editors, I opted for AfD for better conclusion. Hitro  18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As a neutral party, I'm unaware of the subject's notability. However, as per WP:POTENTIAL, if we could get some Nepali Wikipedians to work on it, it might be possible to establish notability. --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you check "Ways to spot article potential'" within WP:POTENTIAL. What made you think that this article may have potential? First of all, if you are not sure of notability, then you should not tag an article with rescue tag just in the hope that some editor may find out something notable about the subject. I do not agree with you. This has been misuse of rescue tag.  Hitro  09:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you this: Have you ever bothered to perfrom a simple Google search on her ?. I did exactly that yesterday. While I was able to find some sources within the first few pages, some of them were scattered and therefore I decided to leave it there and engage the RS.These are some sources I found (though there are more) . You have the liberty on thinking whatever you want on my decision to "rescue" the article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had searched for the subject all over internet including Google Nepal.The references you are talking about don't make the subject notable. I hope you do not believe that anything that can be searched over Google should have a separate Wikipedia article. No matter you have thousands of Google hits, you can not be part of encyclopedia as an actor or media personality unless you satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. I have clearly mentioned in my nomination reason that the subject does not have notable associated act and fails WP:ENTERTAINER. If you go through WP:GOOGLE, it is clearly mentioned there Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. So we can not just depend on an Google Hits. Notability is a major criteria. Please read WP:GOOGLE specially "What a search test can do, and what it can't" then justify your act of tagging this article with rescue tag. I still do not believe that you had any proper reason for tagging this article other than testing the tag because you haven't left any comment at edit summary or AfD page until I asked you to do so. I do find one more article, i.e. Asrar Ahmad Adraak‎, you have tagged with rescue tag without any reason.  I respect your effort and view but I clearly do not agree with it as of now.   Hitro  16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - has it occurred to anyone that a contributor to this article, is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of article creator  who was previously blocked for sockpuppetry? Just curious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Hitro  17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Can't figure out why she's notable, apparently fails WP:ENTERTAINER. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:18, 7 July 2009 (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.