Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darshana Banik


 * 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Darshana Banik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe that this passes WP:NMODEL/NACTOR. No multiple, significant roles as an actress, and the only sources I can find are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, picture sites, directories and social media. I think that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.  Super Mario  Man  ( Talk ) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as two sources I have added to article including Times of India confirm she has a prominent role in a primetime Indian tv series, also telegraph shows she is a very popular model, also won a Miss Photogenic Award for models which seems of note as it received press coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The point about "multiple, significant" acting roles stands – the impression given is that the subject of the article is still very much up-and-coming. And winning what appears to be a new (less than five years old), regional, college student beauty pageant (at least according to this) is very weak grounds for keeping the article.  Super Mario  Man  ( Talk ) 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article also relies on original research in at least two places – neither of the sources in the "Television" section states that the subject appeared in Byomkesh Bakshi, and the claim that she has appeared in "short films" (plural) is completely unsupported (source 2 gives one credit only).  Super Mario  Man  ( Talk ) 18:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You make some very good points, but I still think the combination of being a prominent model with having a meaty role in a primetime series pushes her just over the notability hurdle. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If she were truly "prominent" I think that there would be far more significant coverage online. The sources that are currently present in the article seem to be the best that the web has to offer, and they are, in order: a two-and-a-half-line description (which mentions modelling work but gives no specifics), a few lines in which the subject discusses herself (so not entirely reliable), and two passing mentions of her one significant TV role (which don't even give the name of her character). I'm not sure that the series itself is that notable either – I can find little information about it other than what's in the last two sources. As the subject fails all three points of WP:ENTERTAINER (no multiple roles in notable works, no "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" and no large fan following – certainly not on the basis of what we have here), the article should be deleted.  Super Mario  Man  ( Talk ) 00:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as still questionable for the needed notability improvements and there's nothing to suggest at least minimally better. SwisterTwister   talk  05:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:GNG requires that notability be demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the topic in detal.  Those sources simply do not exist.  I have examined the sources cited and found that three of the four merely mention the subject's name, giving absolutely no other information about her, and the remaining source appears to be a short interview, which is unhelpful per Interviews.  Googling turned up nothing useful.  Msnicki (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - after several days at AfD, this stub is still poorly sourced. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a badly sourced stub which NMODEL. Hasn't had any significant roles as an actor or as a model. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  03:24, 26 April 2016 (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.