Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavika 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavika Sharma

[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)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to meet WP:NACTOR with just a handful of minor roles. The existing source is not a good one and there's just not much out there. Ravensfire (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close, and rePROD, with special obligation for anyone de-PRODding to open a new AFD for and explain why they think the article should be kept. Sheldybett's deprod rationale is invalid, and shows the same poor understanding of policy that recently got him banned from a variety of procedures that, under a broad interpretation, might include this. Ideally any admin closing this discussion should also issue a warning to the nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. Does not pass WP:NACTOR. That said, I don't see anything wrong with the deprod. At the time the BLPPROD was placed there were no sources of any kind. But one source, admittedly trashy, was added that seems to verify most of the article's content so deprodding is probably OK. Besides which, letting this discussion run to a delete consensus will be quicker than closing it, re-prodding, and then waiting a whole week. Reyk _YO! 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deprod was wrong because the unreliable source was only added after the blpprod notice so the article should have been deleted under WP:BLPPROD Atlantic306 (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If the biography remains unsourced after seven days, the biography may be deleted. That sure sounds to me like adding a source makes deprodding OK. Might help if you actually read WP:BLPPROD. Also, if you'd read the article you would know it's about a woman. Reyk _YO! 14:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the doubt here is over whether this source is reliable. If there is any doubt then surely the best thing to do is to hold a discussion here, where that and other potential reasons for deletion can be discussed to form a consensus, rather than use a procedure that takes just as long as a deletion discussion anyway? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON at this stage of his career, but she has made a good start to her profession and may become notable in the not too distant future Atlantic306 (talk) corrected to actress Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 12:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with better sourcing. It doesn't really matter quite how reliable IWMBuzz might be, because the coverage in the source provided is very trivial rather than significant, and I can't find any better sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2019 (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.