Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savita Bhabhi


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Savita Bhabhi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Reads like an ad, non-notable porn site. Kwsn  (Ni!)  13:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep I'd love to see this binned, but in spite of the terrible copy, it does seem fairly well sourced and hence passes the notability guidelines. Needs rewriting, but not deleting. Yunshui (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Yunshui. Despite the fact that it needs a re-write, the article is well sourced and notable enough for me. --MK 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Notable enough. Could possibly be merged into another article or articles.  Not sure which.  --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Keep It's not very well-written and needs some reformatting, but the references show that it passes the WP:GNG. → Σ ⚑   ☭  07:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced article... --Cavarrone (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Even though the current state of the article is not the best, I believe that there is enough evidence from reliable secondary sources, particularly from Indian and British publications, that show that the cartoon (or at least the controversy that it stirred) meets the general notability guideline. I would agree that a merge in an article about Indian cartoon controversies or something similar might be better suited, as it is the controversy the one that is notable, not the cartoon itself. However, there is no such article, so keeping the article seems like the best course of action at this moment. Jfgslo (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are pretty well referenced sources in the newspapers.This character is quite famous in India(in a hidden way).If you want to check the exact details of the text I doubt you will find any full fledged reference to the details just because it is taboo to talk about porn toons in India.The details of description of the character can only be found on the the home website of the toon. Vivekananda De  --tAlK 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose Speedy Deletion. Not an encyclopedic article. - aηsuмaη  ༽Ϟ  18:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - as proposer. aηsuмaη   ༽Ϟ  18:48, 8 October 2011 (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.