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. After three relists, no firm agreement has been reached as to what to do with the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bondita Acharya[edit]

[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)

I see not a single non-trivial mention over RSes about the subject. Got sparse media-coverage after being subject of a rape/assault-threat; (which though utterly condemn-able) falls under BLP1E at best and thus, disallows an article. ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Very poor referencing. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am looking for and adding more references to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references from reliable sources and more information about her work. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep meets WP:GNG with RebeccaGreen's work... Thanks.~~ Hninthuzar (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Sock !votes are struck.[reply]
Keep - GNG satisfied with RebeccaGreen's usual high quality source work. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Rubbish sourcing; give me a day to defend. ∯WBG^converse 19:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was the last relisting, and even without the struck vote, it would likely be closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep - so you just delete the closure?!?!?! Arguing for changes in closure policy in the edit summary when you, the nominator, remove a closure by an uninvolved editor, is disruptive - not the reasonable closure. If you disagree with the result, appeal it or renominate it after a suitable period. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed that that had happened - it's wildly inappropriate. It's a literal involved. @RebeccaGreen: is entirely right - without the sock !vote, it's an NC. RebeccaGreen, the logical route seems to be to ask an admin to take a look at the close, now that it's had some complication built in. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a flying fuck about the exact policies; dumb NAC-adventures shall be reverted. Bringing sources (and !votes) on the last day without giving the nominator a scope to defend can be effectively weaponized to game the system. And, fourth relists do happen. ∯WBG^converse 05:20, 11 March 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.