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.
No evidence of notability. A filmography videography, alone, is not evidence of notability, even if the sources were impeccable. Previous CSD ({{db-person}}) was rejected as "decline CSD, presence of valid sources". —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I can't find significant coverage, and, even if I could, I could not tell which of the "
Bollywood" magazines are
reliable, and which are
scandal sheets. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Why did you strike out
filmography and instead called it a
videography? While filmography is a list of films and it was indeed not the accurate word to use, the videography is not really a list of television series to make it right to use. Although videography is a process of making video, someone might call a "list of videos" as videography too. The subject is a television actor who appears in
Indian soap operas and not someone who appears in maybe
music videos. Also, he is not a
Bollywood actor to be found in reliable/unreliable sources related to Bollywood. Have you even understood what the "claimed notability" is? §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C} 07:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)reply
There is no claim of notability in the article. I still think it qualifies for a speedy {{db-person}} even if the person were notable. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)reply
For
WP:NACTOR#1, I see no claim the roles are "significant", or that the television shows are "notable". I see no statement relevant to #2 or #3. —
Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)reply
The number of episodes something has doesn't show how notable it is. My self-published newspaper has 6000 editions but nobody has read it.
Second Quantization (
talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)reply
You might want to check what channels air(ed) these shows and then speak on how "number of episodes" has to do with notability. We aren't talking of YouTube Channels here. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C} 05:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Northamerica1000(talk) 06:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar♔ 00:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete No indication of notability although the existence of Indian sources I do not have access to is possible,
Second Quantization (
talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (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.