Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjali Dinesh Anand

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Dinesh Anand

[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)

Haven't done any important or major works so far. No significant coverage to claim the notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. - The9Man | (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The9Man | (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The9Man | (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The9Man | (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep: I think there's a case to be made for WP:NACTOR (which is what I assume the nominator meant by WP:ARTIST) because the subject appeared in 463 out of 476 episodes of Kullfi Kumarr Bajewala and all 156 episodes of Dhhai Kilo Prem, where she had the lead role. ~~And I think WP:GNG is met, too, because when~~ When you eliminate "Dinesh" from her name to search her online, there is a lot of coverage in such sources as The Times of India, The New Indian Express and The Hindustan Times:

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/noida/delhi-is-chaotic-noida-is-quieter-in-comparison/articleshow/63960959.cms

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/kullfi-kumarr-bajewalas-anjali-anand-enjoys-playing-the-vamp-asks-fans-to-keep-the-hate-coming/articleshow/63727597.cms

→https://www.hindustantimes.com/tv/108-kg-actor-refuses-to-gain-more-weight-for-star-plus-s-new-tv-show/story-rVBcrv0kD5j1FeFvhKr1qJ.html

→https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/hindi/2018/apr/20/industry-is-obsessed-about-how-an-actress-should-look-anjali-anand-1804130.html

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/fashion/buzz/plus-size-actor-anjali-anand-shows-how-different-is-better/articleshow/57958698.cms

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/tough-for-plus-size-people-to-find-work-in-showbiz-anjali-anand/articleshow/60143866.cms

Dflaw4 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4: If you go through the above links you will see that all of them are interview styled PR articles which are not considered WP:RS.
- The9Man | (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:The9Man, that's true—some more than others. ~~But, personally, I feel there is enough material there as a whole to satisfy WP:GNG.~~ I'd certainly encourage other editors to evaluate the sources, ~~however,~~ and to express their opinions. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Having thought some more about the nominator's comments above, I have downgraded my vote to a "Weak Keep" because of the questionable nature of the sources. I still think WP:NACTOR is satisfied, though, and WP:GNG is almost met. Dflaw4 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Dflaw4.IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom—promotional and interview sources don't usually count for notability. Since she appeared in multiple TV shows it wouldn't make sense to redirect to either one. b uidhe 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are mostly from the online editions of these publications or printed in the entertainment pullout supplements which are all paid PR. The sources don't meet our standards. Aghore (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: ~~The nominator's profile has been deleted. Does anyone know what happened?~~ Dflaw4 (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this, it must have been a technical glitch. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources found by Dflaw4 make the article good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are virtually no sources about this person that meet our criteria and the TOI sources are not acceptable as per the recent WP:RSN discussion which resulted in deprecation. Praxidicae (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.A non-notable actress - no notable roles, contribution or coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akhiljaxxn, how about her roles in the two shows I mentioned above? Dflaw4 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2020 (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.