Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Sharma

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. ST47 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Sharma

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This actress doed not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO. And no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A google search shows enough websites writing about the actress. But the article in its current state on ENWIKI is very poorly structured and sourced. Maybe a good rewrite will be sufficient. HM Wilburt (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a truly terribly written article, one citation being cross-linked to the subject's name for some bizarre reason. I thought that the Deccan Chronicle source, cited three separate times for no good reason, was a good start. It is in-depth when it comes to biography of the subject, covering the subject's date of birth, family background, and early career; and DC is not known to be one of the paid news in India purveyors.
But it turns out to have been written after this article, and seems to have lifted things either straight from this article, covering the ground in exactly the same order using much the same words, or an undisclosed press release that also generated this coverage that was also dated 2019-05-06. Interestingly, WBR disclosed its earlier recycled press-release coverage of this subject, including this back in 2016, stating it right in the bylines and putting an explicit warning about unreliability at the bottom of the pieces.
I'm not convinced that people are checking facts beyond recycling Wikipedia and press releases, not least because of the explicit statements of that; but also because it seems that otherwise contemporary sources cannot agree on what the subject studied at university. Wikipedia, before the press-release-inspired news coverage, said law; with no clue as to where that information comes from as it is not in any of the sources then cited. It might be outright fiction. WBR, going from the undisclosed press-release, said rather that it was a B.Com. What's correct? We don't know because no-one has actually done the legwork to find out properly. There are not any sources that are trustworthy for anything.
It seems that everything is self-publicity and not independent sources, even the stuff that at first blush appears that it is not. I think that an accurate biography of this subject cannot be written in compliance with our content policies.
Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR - no notable achievements and no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Just Chilling (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2019 (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.