Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen

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. Fails WP:GNG (lacking substantive coverage in reliable sources), and WP:ENT (significant roles in multiple notable television shows) Sancho 17:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Sen[edit]

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

No indication of detailed coverage needed per WP:GNG; nothing to indicate any extensive career or awards to show notability per WP:NACTOR John from Idegon (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I admit that this is a borderline case but I would say 'keep' as she played in multiple notable TV shows aired on multiple notable Indian TV channels. The article lists sources confirming that. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 07:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep on weight of roles. You'll find most actors don't have detailed bio info available...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

where is the evidence about the weight of the roles? these are mostly minor or very minor roles-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that they are minor or very minor roles? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the burden of evidence is on those claiming notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We link to tellychakkar in 373 articles, they have a large fan base on facebook and editorial team. Of course, they are not The New York Times, but a website specialized on entertaiment in India. Why do you think they are not acceptable? Where did you read they don't have a reputation for fact checking or editorial oversight? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that there have been a lot of spammy "references" sneeked into Wikipedia is not really valid. Nor is the fact that they have a large fan base. And while they may have an "editorial team" ; as seen in that same "about us" page, they pitch themselves first and foremost as a promotional partner, secondly as a gossip site, and no where as a "fact checking objective news" provider. Where have you read that they are highly focused on fact checking and accuracy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 07:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tellychakkar.com is WP:RS. And the roles are notable enough to have the subject to be covered independently as a article piece with the name of subject in the title by these RSs. Visit Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TellyChakkar.com. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tellychakkar.com About us: "[http://www.tellychakkar.com/about-us India's most widely read online Media, Advertising, Marketing & Satellite Television resource. Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. " - Their primary business is promotion. Their second claim "The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips" Their focus is hardly "reliability" and as a primarily marketing and promotional service, they can hardly be considered acceptable for establishing notability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were the articles used [1] [2] as source gossipy? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for establishing notability, which is what we are here for, what matters is that Tellychakkar.com identifies itself first as a promotional partner. (and to your original question about gossipy "However, we have come across more exclusive dope to share with our readers." - the answer is "yes")-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted sentence "...providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution" refers to the website http://www.indiantelevision.com/, but it looks that TellyChakkar is a part of it. Do you think that Anushka's parents/managers paid to TellyChakkar to write articles about her? I still think it is better for our readers to find an information about her roles in notable TV shows than to find nothing. But it is just my opinion. I accept your point. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think they are a reliable source for anything remotely controversial or contested. And specifically related to this discussion, as part of the "360 degree media service and marketing solution" it is obvious they include promotion on their tellychakkar website. and so nothing from tellychakkar can be considered as part of the "significant coverage by independent sources" portion of WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, a few mere mentions. I think it is WP:TOOSOON. SarahStierch (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking substantive coverage in reliable sources. Searches show that sources are either substantive or reliable, but not both. Since she is still young, there is no harm in waiting until she generates more coverage. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article currently has one source, so I can't see how it passes WP:GNG as currently constructed. Seems like WP:TOOSOON as previously stated by SarahStierch, and TRPoD's point make perfect sense in the above discussion. GRUcrule (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2013 (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.