Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neha Rana

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Rana

[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)

Not notable actor, seems like does not pass even WP:GNG. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Punjab. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is a notable actress, having played a notable role of an antagonist in her debut show and the main lead in a recent show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove (talk • contribs) 09:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The subject is a notable actress and required citations were provided when the article was initially provided. It had been noticed that someone is keeping on deleting the citations repeatedly. Action must be taken against the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove (talk • contribs) 09:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vote multiple times. I have struck the second. It has been explained many times why the sources are removed. You need to become familiar with acceptable sourcing, which you are not. Continuing to use them and call for sanctions against others is disruptive. Star Mississippi 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to understand acceptable sources and found that the sources that was removed belonged to that published by Times of India, which is considered one of the most reliable source. Smsslove (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea and therefore no opinion implied about the rest of this conversation but Note about the Times of India: Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable".). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she has one lead role in a notable series, and that is well sourced, and various roles of much lesser significance but could pass WP:NACTOR though. If judged insufficient, at the very least redirect to Junooniyatt#Main for now.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pass in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2023 (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.