Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sneha Jain (3rd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ( All sources are from one TV serial ) PravinGanechari (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep Noting this is the 3rd AfD, after a "no consensus" and a "delete" earlier this year. I don't think meets WP:NACTOR, but given there is some coverage (not all significant) spanning 2020-2022 in multiple publications may just about meet WP:GNG. Only weak given not overly significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make !vote even weaker given discussion below, and the TOI refs seem to be ETimes rather than the main "news" part of the site. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete times of India should not be used to establish notability. (TOI is known for paod new/reviews/puffery, and according to WP:RSP, it is "generally unreliable".) Pinkvilla is a gossip site, something similar to paparazzi/tabloid. If these two are excluded, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG/establish notability. Like Kj cheetham has said above, subject fails WP:NACTOR as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment usernamekiran, I though Times of India was as per WP:TOI was "no concensus" on reliability? Though the comment alongside it suggests it's on the "generally unreliable" side. I figured it had at least a little bit of weight especially on a topic not about the government. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kj cheetham: Hi. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#The Times of India is a short discussion, but it discusses the issue very well. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I'd not read that specific discussion. Also for the benefit of other editors, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 355#Pinkvilla, Meaww & Bollywood Life is a discussion involving Pinkvilla. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kj cheetham: The article of TOI, describes the history of paid news of print media at The Times of India#Paid news. Many people, including myself, believe that TOI still does the same for their website, especially when it comes to media/entertainment. Not sure about their print media. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete again, still not notable. Sourcing is scant, few if any we can use. Most appear to be tabloid stuff, but I can't read some of them. Confirmation she's on the cast list, being on her period and talking about the casting couch... Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2022 (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.