Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sana Dua


 * 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.  So Why  14:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sana Dua

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography of 1st runner-up of a beauty pageant. Fails WP:GNG. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC) World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Passed for Stay Sana Dua is winner of Femina Style Miss Diva North, 2016 award. Multiple third-party reliable sources confirm to the notability. 1st runner up Femina Miss India 2017 is also a huge achievement. Sana also participated in Miss United Continents contest in Guayaquil, Ecuador --Rashkeqamar (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete did not even win the beauty pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 1st runner up in Miss India is also a big achievement. Many other people who did not won have also their article pages on Wikipedia, like Lopamudra Raut, Sushrii Shreya Mishraa etc. Multiple sources prove article notability. Sana won Femina Style 2016 award .--GuneetaGhai (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- While I am not familiar with whatever special purpose notability guidelines we may have for beauty pageant participants, I suggest they are irrelevant here, as I suggest Ms Dua meets the criteria at GNG. (1) Her participation in beauty pageants is not a "one event", because she is using the scrutiny brought to her as a beauty pageant participant to speak out on social issues, including: women's rights and women's education; advocating and praising the secularization of Indian society; water conservation; violence in her home province -- and RS chose to cover these comments.  (2)  Her standing in the all India pageant is represented as symbolic that there are good news stories from her wartorn province.  (3)  Governor met with her, and the press covered this meeting, and quoted her.   Nominator World's Lamest Critic -- sorry, but did you try to effectively comply with WP:BEFORE?  Please don't make drive-by nominations, where you don't bother to look at the article's existing references, and don't bother to conduct a web search to see whether potential references existed, that the article didn't cite.  I remind you that our policies only authorize advocating deletion of articles on topics that don't measure up to our notability criteria.  When an article is weak, but the underlying topic is notable, policy tells us to work to have the article improved.  You could have added improvement tags, or voiced your concerns on Talk:Sana Dua.  If an article concerns you, but you aren't prepared to determine whether the underlying topic is notable, and you aren't prepared to work towards improving by getting your concerns addressed, I strongly encourage you to simply walk away -- not nominate the article for deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith.Anyways pinging for his take. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 06:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Geo Swan, but we will have to agree to disagree about this person's notability and the value of the press coverage in this particular case. Thanks for your kind words of encouragement and I look forward to seeing you improve this article that you care so much about. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You say you are looking forward to seeing me make improvements to this article? I find it very odd that you should write this, when I already made 14 edits to the article.  Let's leave sarcasm aside.  Did you bother to check to see if I had edited the article, before leaving the comment above?  It certainly doesn't look like you didn't bother.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So first you suggest that I didn't do the minimum amount of research necessary (a Google search) before nominating the article for deletion. Then you suggest that I didn't check the history of the article before making my comment. You are wrong in both cases but you shouldn't feel badly about that since reading other people's minds over the internet is known to be very very difficult. A much less difficult task is distinguishing between meaningful press coverage and short items placed by publicists. I'm pretty good at it, but it is really quite easy if one bothers to try. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the comment above WLC says he or she can distinguish between "meaningful press coverage and short items placed by publicists". They seem to be saying all the press coverage should be regarded as "items placed by publicists".  We rely on WP:Reliable sources here.  Which wikidocument is WLC relying on when they deprecate the existing press coverage?  Newspapers rely on professional editors, and professional journalists.  Neither WLC or I are professional journalists. Our policies call upon us to generally rely on the judgement of professional when deciding what is notable, not the personal judgement of wikipedia contributors.  Now, if WLC thinks he or she can point to wikidocument guidelines that explain why this press coverage should be an exception to the general rule, I would encourage them to be specific.
 * When I drafted my reply on September 30th I was strongly tempted to respond to WLC's unproductive sarcasm, with unproductive sarcasm of my own. I resisted that temptation, and I specifically asked WLC to leave sarcasm aside.  For the second time, I strongly encourage WLC to respond to the substantive points his or her respondents make and leave comedic obfuscation for off-wiki interactions.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan, I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion here with you because you strike me as intractable and obdurate but I will answer your post and then let you have the last word. You have once again magically decided that the world is whatever you think it is. You don't know that I am not a professional journalist so why would you make such a statement? Please stop making assumptions about editors and/or their motivations and/or what they did or didn't do. I will not bother to argue about the interpretation of guidelines and policies in this case since it should be enough to point out that the beauty contest in which Sana Dua was the runner-up is owned by the The Times Group. I think you can figure out the rest. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point, that the pageant is organized by The Times Group? That is a good point.  It does tend to erode the value of reporting in newspapers part of that group.  Okay, why didn't you make this point in a reply to 's comment of September 26, when they claimed notability was established by "multiple third-party reliable sources"?  Wikipedia decision making is supposed to be consensus based.  Arriving at a genuine consensus requires participants to engage in a genuine, respectful, collegial discussion.  If you thought Rasheqamar's  claim of notable RS references was bogus, surely you had an obligation to say so, on the 26th?  Suppose, for the sake of argument, this discussion were to close as delete, and good faith contributors went to read the discussion when they were considering starting a brand new article on Dua.  Surely they deserve the whole story?  Did you mean to imply that every reference the article cites is from a newspaper owned by The Times Group?  Suppose, for the sake of argument, every reference was from a newspaper owned by the Corporation running the pageant.  Suppose, for the sake of argument, this was a compelling reason to discount all these references?  Surely you can see how massively disrespectful your decision to not offer this counter-argument is.  If you are correct, and all those references should be discounted, some good faith contributor could waste hours drafting a brand new article that used references they thought were OK.  Do you know some or all of the publications cited by the article are owned by The Times Group?  How do you know?  If you think all of them are owned by The Times Group, don't you think you should say so?  If you think only some of the references are owned by The Times Group, don't you think you should say so?  In an earlier comment I asked you not to make drive-by nominations.  Here we find it took you almost a week to offer a point that holds some merit.  Even now your explanation is incomplete.  Sorry, but this re-inforces my concern over drive-by nominations. Geo Swan (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep--Fails SNG but passes/scrapes GNG. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 06:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as nicely passing the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2017 (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.