Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonali Raut


 * 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   no consensus. While many of the keep votes are extraordinarily weak, there is still a lack of consensus at this time. Dennis 2&cent; 23:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sonali Raut

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A model/actress that basically falls under too soon. As for the reality show part-not sure how to handle that part. (I've seen people up for AFD for stuff like American Idol though even so yeah) Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * -Oh just looked up the page creator-a sockpuppet person! Wgolf (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable actress with two substantive roles under her belt, in The Xpose and Bigg Boss, passing the WP:ACTOR test, plus she was a calendar model, and there are numerous reliable sources suggesting she easily meets the WP:GNG such as here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Another thing: check out the huge pageview tallies; of course pageview counts is not a formal reason for keeping but in my view exposure this huge rarely correlates with deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * we only count coverage in reliable sources and bollywoodlife is not one, and we only consider significant coverage about the subject, not passing mentions in warmed over promotional PR releases for programme/manufactured promotional "scandal" articles.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * comment-Also she has a not inherited issue. She is still too soon imo. Wgolf (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bollywoodlife is a reliable source for articles about Indian movie stars and such, which is why it has been referenced hundreds of times in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a celebrity gossip site with no reputation for fact checking accuracy or editorial oversight. Why has it been used in far too many articles? Because people think that any link is suitable as a source and no one has bothered to clean it up yet. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as an article that is intended to create notability. She's had a role in a Bollywood movie (with this article claiming that she starred in it, and the article about the movie saying it was a supporting role, that got killed off early in the film). Apart from that her only claim to fame is to have been quickly evicted from Bigg Boss 8, the Indian copy of Big Brother, with most of the article telling us some juicy gossips about what happened before she entered the show, and reactions in the press after she was evicted (since she was allowed to remain in the house only for a very short time I guess there wasn't much to report from the house), with some of the gossips sourced to a gossip site on the 'Net. And, last but not least, she has a sister who is a model. Which, since WP:GNG requires in-depth coverage in multiple third-party sources and WP:NACTOR requires "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", means total fail when it comes to notability. Thomas.W talk 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just noting that Thomas.W tried to remove sources during the deletion discussion, clearly reliable ones such as India Today and Hindustan Times. The claim that Wikipedia is creating her notability is laughably dubious; Raut has arrived as a major Bollywood presence, like it or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I told you on my talk page I was reverting a block evading troll, and the material I reverted was WP:Fancruft, and fancruft is fancruft no matter what it's sourced to. But I guess I should thank you for telling me on my talk page that the article was up for deletion (which I didn't know since there's no way to tell from the diff I was reverting from), that comment is what brought me here. AfD-discussions aren't a vote, BTW, the fate of the article is decided by a discussion based on policy, so your superlatives and peacockery has very little impact on it. Thomas.W talk 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Appearance in the reality show Bigg Boss may or may not help her meet notability criterIa, but the role in the film Xpose does. Incidentally I have seen the film, and her role was a major role. She was one of the two main female characters. Also, Bigg Boss happens to be the most watched reality tv show in India, and heavily popular. In Bigg Boss, usually the participants are TV actors or wannabe movie actors etc (they are not entirely unknown people). So, participating in it also may be notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * about big boss-well American Idol is the biggest reality show in the US and people get tagged for that. Also the film role major or not does not always meet criteria. Wgolf (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Another indication that Raut isn't a "wannabe movie actor" is getting 10,000 pageviews each day, another sign that her fame is not due to a Wikipedia article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * see WP:ITSPOPULAR and then come back with a rationale that actually carries weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep She has claimed her success In india initially gaining success Kingfisher and modelling. Afer appearing on a movie with big banner in India she was introduced to industry and lately her appearance on Biggboss makes her eligible to have a wiki page. On google count 637,000. Daan0001 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * see WP:GHITS - we only care about significant coverage of the subject by reliably published sources. Please specifically show where that has happened. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Closing admin please note that TRPoD removed referenced information about this actor. I think it should be a general rule that when an article is up for deletion, people arguing for deletion should not remove references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Also note that user ThomasW also removed referenced information from a reliable source Times of India.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Times of India said Raut is returning to the show -- not a "rumor or speculation".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag, so we don't add speculations and unsubstantiated rumours, which is what both TRPoD and I removed. Thomas.W talk 11:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that the source presented here by was not in the article when the material was removed, so his post here, criticising TRPoD and me for removing it, is grossly misleading. Thomas.W talk 11:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I added the line about Raut returning to the show with a reference here and this information has subsequently been undone twice by contributors arguing for deletion. Seems unfair to be both (1) arguing/voting for deletion and (2) removing referenced information at the same time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC) And the Times of India is not a gossip rag printing "rumors"; fact is, Raut is returning to the show. Period.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Event the most reliable source is not always reliable. The "story" is merely part of the ginned up "controversy" that serves as free publicity for a show based on manufactured scandals . The content is not actually about Raut at all, other than as she is letting herself be used as a pawn in this promotional publicity stunt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense squared. It is your original research that Raut is a "pawn" in a "ginned up" controversy as "free publicity"; simply put, Raut is returning to the show.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There are significant coverage in reliable sources which ultimately makes the subject notable . &#8212;  C ute st Penguin Hangout 12:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete She has just acted in one low grade Hindi movie and in a reality show. This fails WP:NACTOR. There are some strict notability guidelines to have Wikipedia articles for individuals. We cant have wikipedia articles for every actors in Hindi film industry. I also suggest to revisit the pages created for every contestants of Big Boss to keep the standard and quality of Wikipedia. Athachil (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree she fails the actor test which says has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and she meets it with two roles in the The Xposé (a major Indian movie) plus the hit TV reality show Bigg Boss. Further, the NACTOR test says has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following which is confirmed by having over 200,000+ pageviews in 90 days. She clearly meets WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2014 (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.