Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shashidhar Kote

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashidhar Kote[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did not think it meets WP:SINGER. Passing mention in the tabloids and fails WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in these two refs. [1], [2]. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 7 sources are not enough to show significance and the first one is self published.Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seven sources is more than enough if they have significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a singer she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. As an Actress or TV host, there may be something there, but I still don't see any significant sources or significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Current sources satsifies WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. There are more than 5 references with significant coverage. So it's correct to keep the page. Thanks. User:NinadMysuru (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.