Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayali Sanjeev

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. – Joe (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sayali Sanjeev (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)

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-promo-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Promotional article, fails WP:NACTOR. FITINDIA 09:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable for her role in the successful soap Kahe Diya Pardes. As with all other articles on Marathi-language pop culture, it has the problem that the English-language sources are terrible; however, the answer to this is a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker, not deletion. I'd also note that this seems to have been part of a mass-nomination of Marathi-language actresses with cookie-cutter rationales. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide the sources.I also note that the above !votes seem to be a part of rapid-fire !voting with cookie-cutter rationales about the terribleness of English sources on Marathi pop culture, without providing a single source.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, I don't speak Marathi either. I can establish from the English-language sources that she has had a major role in a very successful soap, which indicates notability. Targeting someone who has held notable roles because her work is in a language that is poorly covered in English is systemic bias in action and is inappropriate. I individually checked every one of your nominations, voted delete on two that actually seemed to be non-notable, and didn't vote on a couple of others that were arguable; unfortunately, you seem to have met this with a response just as cookie-cutter as your copied-and-pasted mass nomination. The Drover's Wife (talk)
      • Nah..You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. I was engaged in a cleanup drive of the articles creations by the article creator and thus, the mass-nominations.The article creator has self-admitted that he used to believe all actors/actresses are public figures and deserve a WP article, which is a fatal misunderstanding. If you go through his t/p and the last thread on mine, you will see 4 Indian wikipedians--me, FRadical, Tito and Spiff, (the latter two are long-standing sysops), have objected to his sense/understanding of notability and asked him to recheck the notability guidelines, bring creations to a halt and slow down.In that case, it might be prudential if you choose to bring the sources and debate me at the AFD, rather than guessing about existence of sources, in an era when coverage of Marathi issues is quite prominent in English dailies.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is precisely why I checked each one - and voted delete on some on which I agreed with your conclusion. However, if any of the specific people that I voted keep on had been in exactly the same roles in English in the US, UK or Australia, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I can't speak to your view of "coverage of Marathi issues", but the glaring awfulness of all English-language coverage of Marathi-language pop culture has been a consistent and longstanding problem at AfC (across any number of topics within that area) and it hasn't panned out any differently here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know about glaring awfulness but actors/actresses who have featured in multiple notable roles at the level of soaps/TV serials do not manage to retrieve even prominent-independent-coverage in local-language sources, at least in Bengal and South Indian scape.You are granting de-facto coverage to a class of people who almost always don't manage to secure it in Indian scapes.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • And, it's incredibly doux about how you're even more proficient at understanding systemic bias than those who have a phenomenal working experience in the Indian-Wiki-Project-Scape.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NACTOR as has prominent roles in television series and films, as shown in reliable sources such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at the references, three references, one getting inked, one a photoshot, and one where she is getting married. There is no coverage outwith the inital branding and marketing, to get her notice. The lady is not an established actor. She is merely at beginning of her career, and is non notable. scope_creep (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. I couldn't find anything to support the claim she meets WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails practically all criteria for notability, which is rare, and perhaps makes it notable for that. Or not. -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 11 March 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.