Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallak Lalwani

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 no consensus. No consensus appears to be forthcoming. Article does need improvement and particularly more depth of content. KaisaL (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pallak Lalwani[edit]

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

This is WP:TOOSOON. The subject is an Indian actor who has recently acted in a newly released movie. Almost all coverage of her in reliable independent sources just mention her in passing, usually in an article about the movie. I found some articles with a bit more substantial content like [1] and [2], but both of these seem like WP:SPS to me (the second link in particular). At this moment, there is not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. All coverage about her is only in the context of this movie which makes it kind of BLP1E. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC) There has also been COI editing going on here with the intent to promote an upcoming actress who has starred in only 1 movie till date. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest this deletion, As I am the author of this article, I have clearly mentioned first person news articles from reliable sources. Request you to recheck and untag deletion. Thank you! Barney83Stinson (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as there are only 2 works so far and this amount and also size of coverage is expected considering there's simply nothing else convincing, delete until there's better substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two articles with substance and not self-published, additional mentions in other sources. Not great but adequate indicia of passing GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG with articles in major independent Indian news. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some of these major independent Indian news. The two links I pasted above do not seem to be very reliable. In fact, one of them is purely local [3] and the other one [4] seems like a self-published site to me (with loads of advertisements). That combined with the fact that the subject has only appeared in one movie till date. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 23 June 2016 (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.