Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reet Sharma


 * 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. Nakon 03:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Reet Sharma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet WP:GNG criteria, Times of India mentions as just pass by and other website seems like a fan site Shrikanthv (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Tentative Keep. I know the sourcing is a bit weak, but I think she looks like a reasonable fit for WP:NACTOR criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Squinge (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Supported by Times Of India, and Zee Association group. Both of them fairly large companies and fair usage. Keep, as far as my suggestion goes. Moderator to finally decide. Tanishqsh (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (Struck Keep as user has apparently upgraded to Strong Keep below and can't have two !votes. Have commented below too Squinge (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC))

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -Frankly speaking, subject fails WP:GNG (there are all "passing" mentions) and WP:NACTOR (insignificant role).
 * Subject fails General notability guideline for lacking "significant" coverage (Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.), and WP:NACTOR #1 -for not having substantial roles in whatever films and TV shows they did appear into (if they'd have had been, we were likely to see reliable sources proving the claim. In fact, I've watched all those movies, -in some I just can't remember what role this kid was playing of). Here one should note that just appearing into multiple notable films doesn't make subject notable for inclusion unless they have had "significant" roles in them (see also, WP:BURDEN).  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  04:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi  Let's talk! , I agree to your submissions and points put forward, and then I made a point in checking out personally all the projects which are being mentioned here.
 * I would like you to see once more, and being Indian you might comprehend the difference between a mainstream movie and other class movie. Here, providing some links in order for you to see them and decide onto matter. *Maximum Movie - I looked into this matter and found out that she has portrayed the main lead's daughter along with the Neha Dhupia, Arya Babbar, Naseer etc.
 * I did try referencing from the tellechakkar's link and found out that she had a significant episode of Gumrah Series - Here is the link : Gumrah Episode 13 Gumrah Episode 13 - The story talked about a girl and its grand-father's bond. You might as well look into the episode to find the significant. I might consider after you looking into this that the content is basically to be Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanishqsh (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Tanishqsh (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it is "Anupmehra" and you may now on type to ping me. I'm not sure why would someone call me, "Let's talk" -that obviously is not my nick on here. Coming to the discussion, I'm still not seeing any sort of reliable sources documenting the so called substantial role in one film and one tv show (two counts multiple?, not sure). You are providing here YouTube and other unreliable sources to make your point. We are not going to do original research -if roles were "some real substantial", why the heck no media out of uncountable in a country of around 1.22 bn population wrote about the same? As I said, in my rationale above -"passing mentions" neither establish GNG nor in this case, prove the claim of substantial roles in multiple films.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, . Sorry for the previous mention. Yes, in order to make a final call on the statement - I would like you to check the previous mention link thoroughly, the pretext and the content of what it follows. You may find the Coverage: Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Dun? as the source of mentioning the girl as the highlight of their news tally. They have thoroughly discussed about her projects in various films, and shows with even the name mentions. I hope, this proves to be of enough claim to projects she has appeared/worked on. She has been mentioned over different sites like IMDB genre, one such is Movies Buff. I recently got to know about this mention too. Tanishqsh (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tellychakkar, a TV Gossip web-portal, is the only source I am seeing in-here. The reliability of the source is questionable, and afa I can remember we use it to source ordinary claims in Wikipedia articles. Anyway -"one sources neither does make the subject notable" (-per WP:GNG) nor helps to reach another inclusion criteria -that is -"significant roles" in "multiple notable films and tv shows" (WP:NACTOR #1). There are "absolute zero" mainstream reputable sources available on subject that would help them to reach any of the Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. And yes, -www.moviebuff.com -is a completely unreliable source, appears to be some typical user-generated site. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I am Anil, currently a follower of Zee Tv's offering Iss Pyaar Ko kya Naam dun, reached this page after searching for this artist. I suppose this page is regarding this artist's credibility, but she seems to be doing quiet a good work. I am new here, rectify if something is wrong. Anil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniltelevisionbuff (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — Aniltelevisionbuff (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  02:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In reversing the order of referencing if we find the logicality of getting a same reference makes all for the points. I hope the debate gets to the conclusion as soon as possible. Tanishqsh (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep  for the following mentioned points:
 * Mentioning the link to the Advertisement campaign by official ICICI Bank (ICICI Claim Care) which runs throughout nation's theaters as mentioned.
 * Same running through nation's theaters in English ICICI Claim Care English. Note: The above are uploaded by their official channels.
 * Hi. You can't have two !votes in the same deletion discussion, so I presume this Strong Keep overrides your original Keep above and have struck the original Keep accordingly. Squinge (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For sure, I had better reasons to put forward and a strong point and hence better vote. Thanks for the action. Tanishqsh (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Absurd. Firstly, YouTube is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. If uploaded by a reliable media, it could be used to cite some basic bibliographical information not to establish notability. All keep !vote here seem to be JUSTAVOTE. No one has been able to provide secondary, independent and reliable sources that discuss subject in detail. That said, being featured in an advertisement (and YouTube links to prove the calim) -is not a valid crietia of inclusion on Wikipedia.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  07:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To your basic understanding, I would like to point out the references made by Times GroupHere, provided before., even if a passer by mentions her in a leading position on the show. Furthermore to concrete that passerby information mentioned in the Times' report - the video evidences have been provided too, along with a b-town news website mentioning about her tooHere, as mentioned before.. So your claim that they are JUSTVOTES do not adhere to its word, since the mentions are duly provided above. Hence, the above mentions along with suitable evidences of reliability of those passerby or a strong evidences mentioned make her reasonable fit for WP:NACTOR criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Hence, Strong Keep. TheAuthor! (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)-- no need to !vote twice. See also, Conflict of Interest guideline. . Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * -Changed signature to TheAuthor!, nice. Have you ever read the WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guideline? Passing mention doesn't establish notability on Wikipedia (read again). Only one source of questionable reliablity doesn't help meet subject any of Wikipedia's notability guideline. So far, We have two source, one is reliable -have passing mention, second unreliable? source -have decent coverage. The fact is that subject never have had any substantial role in any films and tv shows.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

For more clearing of facts, I suppose you watch Maximum (film) once - This might clear your facts about her substantial roles. Hence the two mentioned sources also make it eligible for the WP:NACTOR criterion. TheAuthor! (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The fact is that subject never have had any substantial role in any films and tv shows." as said by Anupmehra  - Let's talk!, If you read closely to what is written in your called, "passing mention" - It is clearly written That the subject will be playing the role of daughter in the new family. And If you reside in India, you can switch on your TV at 5:30 pm Monday to Saturday on Star Plus/HD to watch her play the lead role of daughter(Got this Info from Google, I actually tuned in to see whether if she is there or no, and I found out that she actually plays a lead role). This is for your personal fact clearing. As far as the notability concerned, the second resource, which has decent coverage has mentioned her various works.
 * We don't do original research. If you show me reliable sources that say what you say then I will happily withdraw my delete !vote. One passing mention, another TV gossip, -would not make subject eligible for NACTOR#1 criteria. Lets make it short, we already have wasted enough time on this. Do you have sources for what you claim subject to be, yes or not? Please don't stretch discussion longer. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  18:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That is my whole point. Can you show me the dis-integration of a source being a passing mention, or how can you compare the strength of a reliable source?. If in that case, yes, the strength of Times Group mention is far widely stronger than any other mention. I am not asking you to do a research, what I am asking is to use some basic knowledge and understanding to measure the strength of that resource. If you think that passing resource cannot be put in NACTOR#1 category, then I think you need to redefine the category, because it is not easy to have a "passing mention" in times group's leading newspaper. TheAuthor! (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Read WP:GNG. We are not only looking for reputable sources but also the extent of coverage. Do you understand, "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources"?? Passing mentions are trivial coverage and Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about that. Do you have any other source beside one passing mention and one TV gossip of questionable reliability?


 * If you want to modify the Notability guideline, then that is out-of-scope of this venue. Start a separate discussion at Village pump. Stick to the point. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER? Yes or No and We are done! Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  01:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems fairly notable to me but not enough english citations are available to prove notability according to guidelines.  Mr RD     21:12, 19 February 2015 (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.