Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayadu Lohar (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   no consensus. There is a good faith disagreement as to whether the sourcing is sufficient to establish notability, and the debate here is roughly evenly divided. (In this I note that the nomination appeared to be procedural, and did not have an explicit argument for deletion, and that Randjithsiji opposed deletion although there was no bolded "keep".) The last keep vote is from a brand new account, but the sources provided have been considered nonetheless. The Mugilpete article is more about the movie, not this particular actor, and would probably not be considered as contributing to notability, but the Pathonpatham Noottandu source has more substantial content about the actor. Another NIE article also covers the actress. I have been unable to find any discussion on the WP:RSP page regarding New India Express as a source, but in general established newspapers are considered valid sources. The case that the subject meets WP:GNG therefore appears to have merit to it, and without a consensus for deletion, I cannot delete in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Kayadu Lohar
AfDs for this article:


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

I procedurally speedy-closed the previous nomination of this article due to it being speedy-deleted mid-nomination while it was draftified (albeit the nomination was trending delete). Now the article was de-draftified but no prose was changed; only some references were added. Since I do not think G4 applies due to the speedy closure of the discussion, I am renominating this article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers,  and Women. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging you since you informed me of the article's recreation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The article was not de-drafted. Insted the content of the previous article was copied to ugly draft. Most of the references and the infobox was added by me on the previously deleted article which was already notable according to WP:NACTOR. Now the article is notable with enough references. So give me a real reason to delete the content. Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:NACTOR this article is notable and not to be deleted. Earlier SD was done by mistake and the person done that stated that also. I dont understand the nomination for another deletion. Strongly oppose for a deletion. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Beauty pageants,  and Maharashtra.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that this actress has starred in three films (third one releasing on the 23th) and won a beauty paegent, she seems notable. The added references (including the interviews) seem notable. DareshMohan (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the creator's concern at WP:Requests for undeletion regarding the previous deleted version, I was about to make a case of attribution, or undeletion to address the concern, when I noticed that the article has been recreated., if you were not in agreement with the draft suggestion at the RfU, you should have said so there, or gone to WP:Deletion review against the deletion of your revision by . The RfU request is still not closed. I see this as a bad faith recreation of the article. Regardless of whether this article is deleted or not, the corresponding draft Draft:Kayadu Lohar should contain attribution for copied content. copied content to the draft with edit summary , but did not provide a revision ID nor contributor name credits from namespace (one of the concerns per the RfU). Finally,  I could not find a deletion rationale in this nomintation. The current revision is not the one for which we had AfD 1. After AfD1, this was again deleted as an (incorrect) G4. If notability is the concern, you may want to reword the nomination, otherwise I would suggest a procedural close.  Jay  💬 09:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the RfU discussion it was clear that the draft will prevail and will not proceed to an undeletion. And there is a clear copyright violation according to a CC-BY-SA-4.0 in the draft. Also SD was done without reading the talk page of the article. That means all this was a mess. A lot of carelessness from multiple people. This was not expected in a wiki like this. That is why I recreated the article. And I expect a clear reason to delete this article again. Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wanted to mention that the undeletion request was archived at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 378 without further updates. Jay  💬 13:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete most of the sources are simply cast announcements. This is about the best one; the Indian Express is a RS, this edition was split off after the owner died, so unsure how notable the New Indian Express is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Deccan Herald, Times of India, The New indian Express says Mugilpete was released on 19th September 2021 and Kayadu was the Heroin. The Hindu, Mathrubhumi, Manorama Online, News18 says Pathonpatham Noottandu was released on 8th September 2022 and Kayadu was one of the lead actor in the film. All the links are posted after the release dates. I don't understand how the reviews are cast announcements. We can debate the notability of The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Manorama online, Mathrubhumi. In my opinion they are leading news papers. according to WP:NACTOR this article is notable and I strongly oppose the deletion. Ranjithsiji (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Oaktree b. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. We lack multiple sources with in depth significant coverage. Further, without reviews with significant coverage of her work in the films she has been in, it's not clear she passes any of the subject criteria at WP:NACTRESS. We need more than a cast announcement or a passing mention in the cast list of a review to demonstrate that the parts she has played are significant under that guideline. The evidence just isn't there.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I share the concerns regarding the criteria of WP:ENT. Additionally, the references in the article and information I can find online are predominately trivial mentions, so there's WP:SIGCOV issues as well. Uhai (talk &middot; contribs) 03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NACTOR as per the sufficient condition that they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films". The more-than-one notable films are Pathonpatham Noottandu and Mugilpete. The subject of the article has had a significant role in Pathonpatham Noottandu (The New Indian Express: "in his upcoming epic Pathonpathaam Noottaandu (19th Century), director Vinayan has announced the female lead, Kayadu Lohar,") and Mugilpete (The New Indian Express: "The story revolves around the couple Raja (Manuranjan Ravichandran) and Apoorva (Kayadu Lohar).") The New Indian Express is a part of established Indian media and seems unlikely to get such basic facts wrong. VideoGamer1337 (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: this editor has made no or few edits outside of this topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.