Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Jagrut (2nd nomination)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Jagrut

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of any notability. Hence: Delete Windymiles 08:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of passing WP:GNG - HalfLifeDelta 12:37, 4 Jun 2019 (UTC)
Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 23:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close do we still discuss AfDs nominated by sockpuppets? The nom was just blocked. The recent AfD (April 2019) was no consensus, but would have been keep were it not for the three delete votes by socks of, you guessed it, the author of this second nomination. It seems sensible ot save time and close this proceduraly, since all the hubub is sock created here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Even if the nom is by a sock, we sometimes still delete. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has enough coverage in reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without the sockpuppet votes at the last AfD, the concensus looked like keep. I think the good faith !votes had it right the first time around. There is enough coverage here to meet GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable person. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Notable as there is enough coverage in reliable sources. Also I am not a big fan of sockpuppets and the attempt to deceive has clearly backfired in my case: hence the Strong Keep - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage in the Deccan Herald and the New Indian Express, from 2011 to 2018. Looking at the edit history of the article, I see some very strange deletion of content, references and categories by one of the editors who voted Delete in the last AfD (who is now a blocked sock puppet, I see), and I note that both tags currently on the article have been added since that AfD too - the notability tag by the sock puppet. It seems there has been a concerted effort to vandalise and remove this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I see I noted coverage in the Times of India and The Hindu as well, in my !vote in the last AfD - they have since been removed. I'll try to find them and replace them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in detail in multiple independent sources. --Slashme (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2019 (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.