Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma Arora

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 no consensus. Nominator was also blocked as a sock. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Arora

[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)

Resources are not enough to justify notability of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is borderline but sources in the article and coverage in the Times of India [1][2] is enough to squeak over the bar of
WP:GNG. The fact that there is no legitimate delete !vote or reason argues for another editor speedily closing this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: Nom has been blocked as a sock. I offer no opinon about the article, I firmly believe noms from socks should not be considered. // Timothy :: talk 15:43, 11 March 2021 (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.