Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritika Singh

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritika Singh

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

I don't see the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. She has no top tier MMA fights so she fails WP:NMMA and there's no evidence she's a notable acress that meets WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no nominAtion statement. Offhand the article looks okay. do ncr am 00:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MDTemp's nomination statement was not there when I commented, although time stamps seem to assert it was there.do ncr am 15:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Looks okay" is not a policy based reason for keeping. An IP removed my nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the actress has appeared in a notable film and her performance has received widespread acclaim for that particular film. Editor 2050 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more sources. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you document "widespread" by multiple reliable sources? The article just cites one review (Sify). do ncr am 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Certainly meets wiki:GNG , and there are far worst sourced bio's Shrikanthv (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are worse biographies is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- only one movie because of mixed art, fails WP:NACTOR. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails WP:NMMA and with one acting role does not meet WP:NACTOR.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irudhi Suttru / Saala Khadoos are the same project yet two different movies - the editing, language spoken and actors are somehow different. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter or actress. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not as an actress. The reviews on the page itself show the widespread acclaim she has received. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because she doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:NACTOR. She hasn't had major roles in multiple notable films or made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to her field. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:19, 13 February 2016 (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.