Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivani Rangole

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Rangole

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

I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline.Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-promo-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources establish numerous notable roles in both films and television. It suffers from the across-the-board problem with English-language sources about Marathi-language pop culture (they're all dreadful), but this needs a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly list the sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was able to confirm, using the sources already in the article and with a bit of added research, that she has held numerous notable roles in both films and television. I don't speak Marathi, so I'm unable to give the article the attention it needs. We don't delete articles on notable people just because the English-language coverage of it is of poor quality: this is systemic bias in action and is to be avoided. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - A detailed reply may be viewed over here.In short, I don't buy your assumptions.I'm quasi-proficient (~Babel 2/3) in Marathi and did not manage to scrape anything non-substantial, barring non-reliable interviews and trivial name mentions.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR as has prominent roles in films and television as shown by sources such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a few additional sources to the article. She appears to satisfy WP:GNG for the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Lonehexagon (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A more appropriate wording than Added a few additional sources to the article would be:--I did a google search and dumped every GHit featuring her name, into the article with zero weighing of reliability, triviality and editorial independence.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--In absence of any valid concerns about systemic-bias, !voters are advised to go through WP:MUSTBESOURCES and kindly list the sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone who has displayed an extremely poor understanding of systemic bias in his mass, copy-paste deletion nominations specifically targeting those underrepresented areas is hardly an authority on "valid concerns". The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess someone who has access to the sources and partially understands the language is clearly more acquainted with the scenario than someone who has self-declared his inability to read Marathi sources etc.~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A substantive analysis of the sources in question would be helpful here; more than "they're enough/not enough".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2018 (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.