Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radhika Rao


 * 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 speedy keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Withdrawn by nominator with no other support for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Radhika Rao

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are clickbait, interviews, PR and profiles. No secondary sourcing.  scope_creep Talk  10:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women,  and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I reviewed some film reviews in linked articles for films she has directed, e.g. for Sanam Teri Kasam The Hindu, IANS in the Hindustan Times, in this article, there is also The Indian Express; for Lucky: No Time for Love, BBC, India Today; for I Love New Year, Filmfare, NDTV; for Yaariyan 2, Firstpost, TimesNow. I think with multiple reviews for multiple films, WP:DIRECTOR notability has support, and this article could be updated to include secondary coverage, and to remove the unreliable sources and promotional content. Beccaynr (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you considered WP:NEWSORGINDIA Looks like The Indian Express is problematic, especially when we're talking about establishing notability. Graywalls (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of these concerns generally, but for the Indian Express review in this article, this is bylined, not "Brand Solutions" content, and it is a 1-star review. I also removed many sources from this article that appeared to be promotional press-release style coverage, and have not considered them as support for notability. Also, the Firstpost review was not glowing, to say the least, but did speak to Rao's other work in addition to the reviewed film. Beccaynr (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Comment The article seems to have some merit. Nomination Withdrawn   scope_creep Talk  08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you sure? Graywalls (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm prettty confident in Beccaynr's ability to analyse an article for notability.    scope_creep Talk  11:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I think there is more work that can be done, I have made updates to the article to incorporate reviews, including with an assist from WP:ICTFSOURCES, and to remove non-RS and what appears to be promotional content. I think keep is supported per WP:DIRECTOR#3 per multiple notable works with multiple reviews, including secondary coverage of her collective body of work. Beccaynr (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2023 (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.