Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashant M Walde


 * 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. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Prashant M Walde

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass GNG, and they do not meet NACTOR. Indeed, the article had mistated that their prior roles were supporting, when in actuality, they appear to be bit parts. This has since been corrected. Only significant role is in a self-produced project.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that Articles for deletion/Prashant Walde was closed as soft delete on 3 January 2022. Given that it was a soft deletion I do not think G4 would hold, but the content is very similar to the deleted page. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep All the links are completely verifying persons notability, links are liable and has depthed coverage so deletion won't be correct.Jsah258 (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Onel5969. It looks like the significance of Walde's roles has been inflated and pretty much all significant coverage appears to be paid for. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete too many refs, but screening per WP:ICTFSOURCES, I don't see any coverage other than in interviews or listicles. Hemantha (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. No evidence of meeting WP:ENT or having significant coverage to meet GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many reliable sources available which do not seem to have been deliberately taken out or paid for. Apart from this, there are many other reliable sources which the editor has not included. I think this page can be improved. Zgz.or (talk) 03:15, March 22, 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, evidence does not suggest WP:ENT is met (yet). Stifle (talk) 11:59, 24 March 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.