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. J04n(talk page) 02:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Evita Saraswati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. No real claim of notability or coverage in multiple independent sources. WP:RS source material I could find consistent of only trivial mentions. Errant ^(chat!) 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Im surprised that after being deleted in 2006, It then returns in 2007 undetected... -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - n/n and subject has requested deletion via OTRS. In borderline cases we defer to the subject's wishes. ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the fact that it was already deleted before, doesn't seem any better now, subject has requested deletion in a borderline case...the reasons for deletion are overwhelming. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2013 (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.