Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rits Badiani


 * 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. Should she gain new roles indicating notability, I would be happy to restore this in userspace for further development. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Rits Badiani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim to notability in the article, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

don't delete this Since web contains only certain resources and I cited them allSHISHIR DUA (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) I changed the heading to bolded text, which is the style normally used in these discussions. --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you are saying that there are no more sources available? That would agree with what I found, or rather didn't find, when I searched for other sources before nominating. The problem is that if there are no reliable sources, there can't be a Wikipedia article. This is the general notability guideline, which shows what is needed in terms of sources. This is the guidelines for actors, and she does not meet that either, since she has not yet had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to draftspace: WP:WOOD. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That might be a good solution but for two reasons: first, there are many thousands of actors who will never actually become notable enough for an encyclopedia, and nothing in the article indicates that this person is an exception. That doesn't mean she won't be, but it would be a bit like creating a draft about a new company just in case it will become notable in the future. Second, the essay you reference (which is neither policy nor a guideline, and which is actually about events rather than people) mentions the "tediousness" of writing a new article – but that would have to be done anyway, since the present article doesn't actually contain anything that would be included in an article about a notable person! The two minor roles in the filmography table might be mentioned in passing in a careers section, but that's all. --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO she will. Don't kill this one too like Emiway Bantai, Faisal Shaikh (actor), CarryMinati. I agree that this is WP:TOOEARLY but there is no harm draftifying. Some editers (including me) would be interested in improving this. And ya that eassy is for events but the reason is same. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete There is merit in moving articles that have extensive work on currently non-notable figures to draft or user space, but this article doesn't really have anything worth saving. Other than some bare role listings, which are readily re-creatable if they do become notable in the future, there isn't any substantial text.  As it is, the sources presented clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:34, 2 November 2019 (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.