Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Anushka Sen (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete without prejudice to userfication  Salvio 09:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anushka Sen

 * – (View MfD)

Declined six times by five reviewers, but repeatedly resubmitted, sometimes with no changes since last decline. Two previous articles on this person have been deleted. See Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen, and Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen (2nd nomination). Because already deleted twice, the question is whether the recent experience is better. Reviewers have thought that she is still not notable. On 12 August, User:Timtrent wrote: "From my perspective this is the final try at submission. You have been told clearly what is required. The next submission needs to be the right one, except maybe small things". Instead there have been two more useless resubmissions, and "Literally nothing was fixed since the last decline". This is a zombie, and needs silver nitrate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I recall. I was disappointed to see it resubmitted so often and so poorly. The young lady is very early in her career despite bing a child actress and has not yet made her full mark. When she is notable there is no obstacle to her having an article here. She is an obvious candidate for a fanbase and this fancruft is not suprising, but a fanbase does not make her notable.  Fiddle   Faddle  15:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a completely hopeless draft that's wasted enough of all of our time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no point in wasting any more time on this.  Java Hurricane  10:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is this being deleted exactly when there is so much coverage? The video alone which has 2million+ views, of her dancing in her lounge. I count 5 separate newspapers with casting reports. The article has better than 50% chance of not being deleted at Afd. So why the push to get it deleted, when it so clear she is notable. Certainly it is not a huge amount of biographical info in these stories, but there is sufficient for a seed article. Here is a story on her as a top influencer:     scope_creep Talk  10:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That last Afd was in 2018, and it voted on by Sock. Not the most salubrious vote. Since then she has managed to accrue 2+ million fans and become a top influencer. I can't see why this even reached this stage when it clearly satisfies WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  10:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was voted on by a user who was later blocked for unrelated reasons and then created a sockpuppet, not by a sockpuppet of someone who was already blocked, and not by multiple sockpuppets of the same person. In general, aren't only the latter two reasons to discount !votes? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Question - If User:scope_creep thinks that she satisfies either acting notability or general notability, are they willing either to accept the draft in its current state or to make improvements to it and submit it for review? I nominated it for deletion because it was being repeatedly resubmitted with no improvement, and it is clear that it will not become an article with the current submitter.  If an experienced neutral editor like User:scope_creep is willing to take the lead in taking this to article space, I will change my !vote to Neutral.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I find a bit of puzzlement that nobody could have taken the time to find a couple of extra sources for a child actor who has been in the industry for 10 years and is likely more experienced than 90% of the new actors that get articles. Once this is finished, I will be take it out as an article. It will pass Afd as there is a clear case of WP:NEXIST   scope_creep Talk  06:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: If User:scope_creep wants to write an article on this subject, no one prevents them from doing so. In the last five days, however, no one's bothered.  No reason to keep a multiply-failed draft (and for a subject where mainspace articles have been deleted several times over) on the offchance that anyone might.   Ravenswing      05:06, 29 August 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.