Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radha Bhatt

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. Strong arguments on both sides, with no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 08:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Bhatt

[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)

References are mostly of brief primary account (interviews), and the rest do not center around her. WP:NEWSORGINDIA might apply to some sources. Overall, the sources do not establish the grounds for a standalone article on this individual yet. X (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. -Mushy Yank. 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~She might pass WP:NACTOR for~~ her roles in Sunflower and The Family Man for example, [is significant and has received coverage] as the bylined presentation of this interview in The Hindustan Times [among various sources] states. A lot of interviews in more or less reliable media outlets are an indication that she could be considered a notable person. If NEWSORGINDIA applies (and how exactly please and to which sources precisely?) to sources on the page, the very general recommendations in that paragraph in an information page do not apply to all sources and should not prevail over the specific notability guideline. ~~So (weak) Keep;~~ Redirect to Sunflower for now (and expand back later in time into a proper article when/if she has more significant roles in the future]. Draftify if judged insufficient, please.-Mushy Yank. 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (Edited Feb 15, by myself, after reading @RebeccaGreen:'s comment below about The Family Man, where her role is indeed very small).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like she passes Wp:NACTOR, multiple significant roles in notable films. No objection for redirect. Zuck28 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not seeing evidence that she passes WP:NACTOR. The article says "she played a parallel lead" in Agar Tum Saath Ho, but she appears at the end of the cast list in that article. She's not listed at all in The Family Man or in Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi. I'm not sure how significant her role is in Sunflower - it's not mentioned in the plot summaries, though they may not be accurate. But even if it is a significant role, that would still be only one, not multiple. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Her role in several distinguished films substantiates her qualifications as an actress. But this article needs more substantial coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The standard is notability, not acting ability nor "serious" drama, as claimed in the article. That being said, I don't see any "serious drama" in her casting: she's been in a spy thriller. It needs extensive editing to be a good article. I'm tagging it and moving on. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, sorry. What do you mean by "serious drama"? What's wrong with playing in a spy thriller? Also, I removed the tags you had put on the page (they didn't seem accurate; if that was a mistake, again, sorry). (I'm !voting redirect myself (now) but expansion is possible, plenty of bylined intros to interviews can help, btw) -Mushy Yank. 12:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she meets WP:NACTOR. There are quite a bit of sources on her that people can add, like [1] [2]. The article in its current state is quite poor though. jolielover♥talk 19:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had another look at this. I wondered if several of the titles in the lede that are not included in the Filmography table should be. She does have a lead role in some of them, but they do not appear to be notable productions, so they don't help establish her notability. I also checked the sources provided by the previous editor. They both appear to be about different women named Radha Bhatt - the first is about one born in 1931, and the second is about a Cambridge University student who was aged 19 in 2014. While her age might fit with this Radha Bhatt, this WP article states that this Radha Bhatt studied at Hansraj College and Delhi College of Arts and Commerce - there is no mention of Cambridge. Even if she did study there, the linked source is about her challenging a move by British universities to allow "voluntary" gender segregation at Muslim meetings on campus - it doesn't add to her notability for either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I would not be averse to a Redirect to Sunflower, per Mushy Yank's suggestion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, most of the sources are trivial (like her acting roles).JustinTrooDooo (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2025 (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.