Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharti Kumar

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Kumar[edit]

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

Despite obviously failing BLPPROD because the sources are not WP:RS this article has been reviewed and the BLPPROD removed, hence I am flagging it here as a disputed PROD. It has just sufficient notability asserted to avoid speedy deletion, but the featured person is not notable. When they are they may have an article here. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 09:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The PROD was put in place just over 10 minutes after the article was created. Creator had improved references prior to my viewing and after reviewing I encouraged the creator to add more information and references, which is still being done gradually. This article needs working on not deleting. Research of the actress will show that she is certainly notable in line with the many other actors/actresses under the India WikiProject. Coverage has big effect on the availability of sources of article's like these so we must give them a chance rather than submitting a PROD while the creator is still making additions. Research on the subject certainly asserts notability and by not taking the standard of global sources in this category into consideration, we are not being supportive of smaller scopes which often create these debates. --- Xenomm (Leave a message!) 01:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add: I wasn't aware of WP:INDAFD prior to this, however it holds strong merit on cases such as these. The reason I became involved with such articles is mostly because I hold no bias on the subject and I see that such articles are approached by some with negative preconceptions. When I researched this actress in particular I found a facebook fan page with 5000+ followers, and a long list of individuals asserting how they see the actress as notable, which although may not satisfy Wikipedia policies, it certainly assures me of notability. I tagged the article for addition of better sources and also advised the article creator that this should be addressed. I've acted as a reviewer of numerous similar pages, some which I've had speedily deleted and some which I felt simply needed more time to improve. This article in particular was proposed for deletion very soon after it had actually been created, which in my view isn't helpful to Wikipedia as a project and why guidelines promote reviewing from the end of the queue rather than the newest pages. In addition the creator is still working with us to improve the article and has taken all advice into consideration. Common sense dictates to me that articles like this need researching further before submission of a PROD. Contrary to the view of the AfD submitter, the subject is definitely notable, we just need to allow time for it to be further sourced, so that we're not treating India WikiProject articles unfairly. --- Xenomm (Leave a message!) 16:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With good narration of the history of the article, the nominator seems to have forgotten to mention why exactly he/she thinks the subject to be "not notable". Your nomination is just a "blah and blah and delete it". Can you enlighten us more? Also, please help me understand how http://www.tellychakkar.com/ is not a RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I certainly find the conduct of the nominator, slapping a PROD on the article mere minutes after creation, to be really unhelpful. How about we try to help out new editors rather than taking them straight to the deletion process? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no policy based reason for deletion was ever given, the BLPPROD mentioned was invalid, and this actress appears to be notable anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 27 September 2013 (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.