Although the last deletion review was closed only a few days ago. We have been asked to come here with respect to the notice made by @
Stifle in their talk page:
[1]. As already stated by us several times in several places, Priyanka Choudhary has passed
WP:NACTOR and
WP:SIGCOV through her various roles. There is significant coverage supporting the same in the latest deleted version of
Priyanka Choudhary deleted by @
Stifle on 3rd April 2024 at 9:43 am.
Infact there was an ongoing discussion which involved @
C.Fred, myself
Amma&Papa and @
ManaliJain in the talk page of the subject which clearly proved that the article did have new information on the newer roles with
reliable sources which made the subject notable. So, please kindly review the deletion and restore the article so that it can be subjected to a new AFD where a new consensus can be reached.
Honestly, it is "unfair" that the Wikipedia admins are constantly penalizing the other editors who have no connection with the past and would like to create an article of
Priyanka Choudhary by following the community guidelines while there are so many articles like
Abhishek Kumar (actor),
Isha Malviya and
Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia which are kept even though the subjects aren't notable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amma&Papa (
talk •
contribs) 06:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse If you think
Abhishek Kumar (actor),
Isha Malviya, and
Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia aren't notable you are welcome to nominate those articles for AfDs as well. It's unfair to the Wikipedia community that we can't make a final decision that this actress is not notable and instead have to keep wasting our time relitigating it again and again and again. Finally, who is we? Wikipedia accounts
must be used by only one person.
* Pppery *it has begun... 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse per the many previous DRV’s on the subject and her listing at
WP:DEEPER. It doesn’t appear that anything has changed since the previous DRV a few weeks ago. No objection to creation of a draft to go through the
WP:AFC process. FrankAnchor 16:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse the closure of the previous DRV (?) and speedy close this DRV as out of proccess as nothing new has been brought. Per the instructions at DEEPER, the appellant is welcome to prepare a draft they believe would satisfy a
prima facie review with new sources that have not been previously addressed or considered in prior AfDs or DRVs. I understand that they don't agree with the decision in that regard of the previous draft, but there is nothing new here. This concluded less than a month ago and appellants bring no new sources to this DRV,
just a stick, unfortunately.
microbiologyMarcuspetri dish·
growths 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.