Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meera Deosthale


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Meera Deosthale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable actress. Google search finds mostly social media hits and this Wikipedia article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - she seems as remarkable as any :) Deosthale has coverage in several major newspapers:, , , , , , and some interviews that help less . , . Yvarta (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I note only one reasonable reference in the lot (4). See below analysis. Nothing suggests that WP:NACTOR criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Discusses 5 things about the actress like ... she is close to her mother. Nothing indicates notability and this is basically a press release.
 * 2. Just talks about the actress fainting and being told to get bed rest. Again, agent talking to bored reporter.
 * 3. Mentions the subject once in passing and does not indicate any notability.
 * 4. Good reference about a particular role for the subject in a TV show.
 * 5. Maratha Warrior King, Paras Arora, denies dating subject. Even if he was, what actor is not dating a starlet?
 * 6. Rehash of 2.
 * I would agree some of this content matter is rather "silly" or human interest-focused rather than full of gravitas. That said, the editorial staffs of major newspapers found her notable enough to assign paid reporters to rustle up articles on her, and the coverage in each case is more than passing. Excluding perhaps 3. Yvarta (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that since she has worked in 4 popular shows, and played female leads in two. Thus, she should be given recognition for her work in Indian television. Could you please explain why you think she's an unremarkable actress? Robert McClenon (talk) Sikhwarriorspirit (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are asking the nominator to prove a negative? If you think she is notable, per the WP:NACTOR criteria, please add suitable authoritative references to the article. The question is not whether the actress is "unremarkable", but whether the subject is notable. No references indicate that.--Rpclod (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Rpclod, perhaps you could explain how the Times of India and India Today aren't authoritative? Yvarta (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, evidence of notability is provided by "significant coverage in reliable sources". I am not saying that those sources do not qualify as reliable sources in general.  However, context and significance are also important. Entertainment tabloid style coverage in otherwise reliable sources is often not "significant" - especially where it appears to have been placed by a publicist.  Much coverage listed is trivial and not substantive. Please note that I have not !voted because the subject could be notable, I have just not found significant coverage that proves notability.  Frankly, I would love to see better references in the article that do show notability, especially regarding the issues that Gab4gab discusses below.--Rpclod (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally see your point. However, "appears to be written by a publicist" I think should not be relevant, because in these articles, the authors credited are not publicists, but paid reporters with traceable credentials. If a journalist writes an article in a reliable source that we subjectively feel seems akin to tabloid fodder, that is simply our subjective opinion as editors, not an actual judgement on the usability of the article. Otherwise, anyone could randomly argue that "any" article seems like it was written by a PR agent, and attempt to use that as a subjective rationale for removal of sourced information. Yvarta (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant roles in two notable television shows (Udaan and Dilliwaali Thakur Girls) meets element #1 of WP:NACTOR. Gab4gab (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lead roles in two shows (Dilli Wali Thakur Gurls, Udaan) satisfies WP:NACTOR. 1292simon (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2017 (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.