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 delete. Nakon 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Ruby Yadav Bjp Leader (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non notable politician. Has not yet won an election. "won" a minor beauty contest , but actually was runner up. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: The subject of the article is notable as she won the runner up title in a National beauty contest. Any contest at national level can not be termed as to be the minor contest. Today Kiran bedi is also a looser politically but her notability as a person of repute or as a social activist is definitely not lost. Similarly, Ruby the article subject is also an active social worker who has been a part of leading news papers. She is a member of Executive council of renowned party, the Bharatiya Janta Party, though lost in delhi state but ruling at centre. I think we must consider keeping the article.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 11:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: As the sources of article suggests Ruby stood as the most popular lady candidate of BJP, who performed remarkably better than others in the election.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 11:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Failed political candidate (as an independent, not for the BJP, which she joined less than a year ago) and runner up in a beauty contest (which doesn't itself have an article). Not seeing a lot of notability here. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Notability - Google gives 65,300 hits for Ruby Yadav BJP, News -441, Check for Images search results news paper search count - 5,13,000 -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 19:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - This is the fifth recreation (11 April 2014, 12 April 2014, 14 April 2014, 19 May 2014). It was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Yadav and closed as "delete" by User:King of Hearts. It think this should be deleted per WP:G4 because it is a " ...sufficiently identical and unimproved copy..." being the same promotional article about the same beauty pageant and political career. However, her political career may have garnered enough press now to pass WP:NPOL. If that is the case, the article may be viable. Then again, the last AfD was calling for delete and salt, and I just removed very promotional content from this new creation. Plus, there was, and probably still is, serious WP:COI and self-promo here. There are over 200 images of this person at commons, and the whole article, as it stands, appears to have been written by a fan or someone on her team. I say delete and recreation ought to have prior approval of King of Hearts. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Tentative delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E. She is in news sources, but only in passing mentions as a BJP candidate. She can't get a "free pass" on notability unless she wins an election and takes office. However, all news coverage is within the past year, and her BJP membership has raised her public profile, so I don't think this is necessarily going to be last time we're going to see an article about her. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete & Salt - I agree user Ritchie333 as failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E also WP:NOTNEWS. She does not pass notability unless she wins an election. Jethwarp ( talk) 16:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment The title "Ruby Yadav" was salted. It was moved from Ruby Yadav Bjp Leader to Ruby Yadav by an admin. When an admin does this, there is no warning they are moving to a salted page. There is a post here about that. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - let's deal with the easy questions first. 1) It isn't a G4 case as the article is not the same as one deleted via AfD. Being deleted multiple times prior to that under A7 is irrelevant to this discussion in any way. 2) There is no proven COI by the current article creator (who has many edits outside the topic and is not the creator of the many deleted versions) & even if there was that would not be a reason for deletion. 3) The current article is not promotional. 4) BLP1E does not apply - that guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in news stories, not say people notable for only one thing can't have articles. Ultimately, most notable people are known primarily for one thing. 5) arguments such as "didn't win election, therefore non-notable" are invalid. Passing NPOL establishes notability; failing it does not establish non-notability.

Now the only actually relevant - does Ruby Yadav pass the WP:GNG? I would suggest the answer is yes, barely, per coverage such as [1],, [2], [3], and [4] which is biographical or semi-biographical and is certainly reliable and of significant length. Keep in mind that Google News does not properly index Indian newspapers - see WP:INDAFD - so many more sources exist than those one finds there. Alternatively, the page could be merged to South Delhi (Lok Sabha constituency)#2014 general election. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Mea culpa, I meant WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E as Yadav is clearly trying to become a notable politician, but the rest of my argument still stands. A merge to South Delhi (Lok Sabha constituency)#2014 general election would be a suitable compromise. Alternatively, we could incubate the article in draft space in anticipation of more news sources turning up over time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm not seeing anything that meets any notability standards. A few articles about being on the campaign trail don't distinguish her from millions of other politicians. 131.118.229.17 ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply

  Coverage, not accomplishments, establish notability on Wikipedia (which is a rather different thing than the usual definition of notability). Fact is that most politicians are notable - all that is necessary is that some of the coverage is biographical, which is the case here. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete"'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This is a quote from [[ Wikipedia:Notability. I do not think this article explicitly follows guidelines, and it seems that some research is original. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete She doesn't meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. The argument "placing" in a national competition makes her notable finds its roots in the policy we have for musicians: Has won or placed in a major music competition. I don't even believe "Mrs. India Queen" is a national competition as Mrs. India is the current national beauty competition. Ruby's name does not appear as a runner-up if the two are being confused as the same thing and all the sources clearly cite "Mrs. India Queen". Since this individual is not a musician, and has not been "nominated" or "received a well-known and significant award or honor" as stated at WP:ANYBIO then we must look at WP:SIGCOV.The coverage is split between both and I'm not overly convinced it's enough to break away from WP:ROUTINE. Also put me down for SALT with the cavat that if an editor feel the subject now meets WP:POLITICIAN, the request for removal of protection should be granted liberally. Mkdw ^talk 21:33, 16 March 2015 (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.