Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Khan

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. No one is actually arguing for deletion here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Khan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. Article was proposed for deletion on 13 February by User:Newt Winkler with the concern, "BLP, no sources, non-notable". This was contested by User:Standard Operating Procedure with the edit summary, "undo edit by sock of banned user". Prod was again added by User:Gene Omission on 25 February with the concern, "unsourced BLP, no references, previous PROD deleted by banned user".

Both Newt Winkler and Standard Operating Procedure are indefinitely blocked as sock puppets.

I am neutral to deletion. Cnilep (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have now rewritten the article with references. She is a popular TV actress. About 90 gnews hits in a couple of years. (use the string Sara Khan + Bidaai searching)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with kudos to Sodabottle. The rewrite and sourcing show notability, with her career meeting WP:ENT, coverage in RS meeting WP:GNG, and the Parivaar Award all showing notability... and notability in India is just fine for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another example of why blind nomination for deletion without looking for sources makes no sense whatever. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gene Omission has now been blocked, too. This appears to have been an ad hominem battle that had little to do with the quality of the article. Glad I removed the PROD. I join M.Q. Schmidt in thanking Sodabottle for improving it. Cnilep (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.