Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kasbekar

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. Anas ^talk? 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atul Kasbekar

Atul_Kasbekar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nothing terribly notable about this article, lacking in details and sources. Has a promotional air about it. Irishjp 14:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think he's notable enough, it just needs better sourcing. The Kingfisher calendar is a fairly big deal and is covered by the media each year, somewhat anagous to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit special. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - http://firstbollywood.com/2006/12/kingfisher-swimsuit-special-calendar.html confirms that he is the photographer for the calendar, but the calender itself doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article. Burzmali 15:03, 10 July 2007
  • I think it probably could have an article. There's lots of press for it, like this article in The Hindu, national newspaper of India. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The photographer is definitely notable; the article needs some references though. Loads of media coverage in India[1][2] including non-trivial mentions such as [3][4]. utcursch | talk 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems fine to me. Lacking references is not (or at least should not) be enough to delete an article. —Xezbeth 08:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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.