Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archana Jois (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Article has been expanded and improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Archana Jois
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Archana Jois

This BLP still does not establish general notability for its subject. A previous article was deleted in 2019, saying that she had only appeared in one major film, and was too soon for acting notability. She has now appeared in another film which is a sequel to the first. Her appearance in this sequel saves this article from a G4 deletion.

She has also appeared in Vijayaratha, which does not have an article and maybe should have an article. However, neither this article nor the sources support general notability. This article doesn't say anything except that she exists. The references don't say anything about her except that she exists. The references are almost all about the films, and are only passing mentions of her.

She may or may not be notable. This article does not speak for itself and does not establish her notability, and the sources do not establish her notability. Maybe the originator can find real sources about her within seven days and build an article. If not, the article should be either deleted or moved to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women  and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Delete - I was unable to discover any English-language sources that could be used to argue that the subject is notable. Please ping me if new suitable sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Changing to keep after reading the sources identified by DareshMohan. Thanks for the ping, Robert McClenon. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable for being a television actress serial lead as well. Sources here and here. DareshMohan (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral in place of implied Delete as nominator. DareshMohan has found two sources that provide independent secondary significant coverage.  Not providing a Keep at this point because the text of the article still doesn't explain what is notable about her, leaving it to the reader to read the sources, and readers should not be required to read the sources.  That is, expand the text of the article slightly to summarize what the sources say.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:BennyOnTheLoose. You asked to be notified if new sources were found (and they are in English). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to pass WP:BLP, WP:NACTOR. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is well developed, and satisfies WP:NACTOR. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be moot now the article has been expanded, but the page was created by a sock account that is now blocked.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:51, 22 April 2022 (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.