Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullai

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. Sandstein 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mullai

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

Non-notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR – subject did not act in a significant role in a major film, has no evident fan base, and has not made any significant or notable contributions to entertainment. Also cited by dubious, unverifiable sources. hiàn 02:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redirect. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The article title 'Mullai' more commonly refers to a type of ancient landscape in Tamil Nadu, described in this section. Although that section content is questionable itself so i'm not suggesting any kind of targeted redirect. Cesdeva (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Mullai' is apparently another (possibly Tamil) name for Jasmine. Refs book, book, book and The Hindu, The Hindu2. There is confliction between The Hindu and the book sources over whether 'Mullai' refers to Jasminum sambac or Jasminum auriculatum. I'm hoping we can delete current page and just create a redirect to Jasmine? I'm drifting off AfD topic though. Cesdeva (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of coverage by authoritative sources, much less meeting WP:NACTOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2018 (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.