Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruhan Rajput

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhan Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Was deleted as a result of an AfD discussion back in 2017, but a G4 speedy was declined with the rationale, "There are new sources and new claims since the last AfD." However, same issues still apply. Not sure how large the roles in the upcoming films are, but as of right now fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. Nothing contributes to notability since the last AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruhaan Rajput (Ruhan)).PRehse (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dear Onel5969, i already explained my reason why article should not be deleted. And User:Spinningspark declined the speedy deletion. But you again marked it for deletion. However i can see the notability of the subject that could be defined by his new work that is published on good news websites like Business Standard, ANI, The Hans India and IMDB. Few articles was not published earlier since last AfD. You should consider the new work and new news article published about Ruhan Rajput's work. And i request to all Wikipedia editors at-least look in to the Ruhan's upcoming movies and music albums then how Ruhan is not notable since its last AFD? You can clearly see his new notable work that is also mentioned on few trusted news papers. You may also look in to the new citations which I am adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFE24 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Just want to make it clear that my decline of the speedy deletion request does not mean that I support keeping this article. It only means that the page does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. SpinningSpark 12:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and fails WP:NACTOR also an article about the same subject was created in April under Draft:Ruhaan Rajput using the AfC process by a different user but the submission was declined twice due to the notability issue. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) (uodated 18:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Now notability meets the criteria.GentlemanY (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO how on earth is this [[1]], which is just a big ad for a skin and hair clinic in which the only allusion to the subject is a picture with "director" and his name beneath it and absolutely no other mention or explanation of his connection to the company in the entire page a reference for anything? the Business Standard article has "This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed" at the bottom. Nice to know the place that publishes it disclaims all responsibility for it; that sounds like a reliable source!. Then there's an article about the petrochemical industry that glancingly mentions the owner of one company which just happens to be the subject. the only article that mentions him has no biographical information at all. Curdle (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 49.145.244.119 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just see few new citations that could be consider. NANExcella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR, or WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage from reliable sources. The new citations are no better. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 26 July 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.