The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
To begin with, the article was created by a sockmaster who was involved in paid editing. There haven't been many substantial edits to the article except for removing promotional stuff. Only two editors added content, one was blocked for socking, and paid editing, while other is the subject of this bio itself.
With a thorough WP:BEFORE, I could not find any coverage in reliable sources. There are a few interviews, and few PR/puff pieces. Most of the times, the coverage comes from mentions (not significant coverage) because the source discusses "looks", and diet about celebrity(s). But the subject doesnt get significant coverage.
In all, subject fails general notability criteria as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
To begin with, the article was created by a sockmaster who was involved in paid editing. There haven't been many substantial edits to the article except for removing promotional stuff. Only two editors added content, one was blocked for socking, and paid editing, while other is the subject of this bio itself.
With a thorough WP:BEFORE, I could not find any coverage in reliable sources. There are a few interviews, and few PR/puff pieces. Most of the times, the coverage comes from mentions (not significant coverage) because the source discusses "looks", and diet about celebrity(s). But the subject doesnt get significant coverage.
In all, subject fails general notability criteria as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)