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. ✗plicit 00:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Tamang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm leaning towards keeping this. Has significant coverage in a variety of independent media sources including but not limited to My Khel, The Darjeeling Chronicle and Khel Now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Also lean towards keep, seem to be a number of hits per her international career. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Spiderone. GiantSnowman 21:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes GNG, BEFORE has not been fulfilled again.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does seem to have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in independant sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep can see sufficient coverage around. --Angelo (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete KhelNow is a a media engagement platform which allows fans/users to contribute different kinds of content, including reviews, photos, videos, events, comments, and more. Mykhel is a subsidiary of Oneindia, a content farm. Darjeeling Chronicle is a sort of citizen newspaper and the article is written in an avuncular or enthusiast tone, not in any journalistic manner. Cannot find other sources from a quick inspection of search results. Hemantha (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that KhelNow is suspect. The MyKhel article is written by a professional journalist so I think is okay for establishing the bare minimum for GNG. There's a reasonably sized article about her on MSN although it's mostly just repeating quotes from her. There is also The Bridge, which appears to be RS and Ommcom News. I'd be interested to see if anything better exists in Sikkimese or any other of the hundreds of languages of India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MyKhel profile links would definitely claim that their authors are professional but I don't think they (or Oneindia) have themselves ever described their work as journalism. There is some discussion in WP:RSN about Oneindia and I'd like to specifically point you to this which has comments illustrating their quality.

I had seen the article from The Bridge and discounted it as it appeared to be essentially an interview. IANS (which is the source for Ommcom) is a private wire service and unreliable. Hemantha (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This user's recent nominations are nothing short of racist, and Tamang is another woman footballer this user has targeted despite clearly meeting GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting accusation, but I stand by my keep vote, as I feel Tamang meets GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to retract. You were calling an apple an apple (telling the truth), and there is no rule against that. 172.58.30.248 (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as having sufficient sources. --StellarNerd (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2022 (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.