Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dishank Arora

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dishank Arora[edit]

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER, as an entertainer with only one major role. There are references for him, yes, but most are Indian gossip/news forums, which aren't appropriate for a BLP. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate without prejudice toward return per Thaindian, Real Bollywood, Telly Chakkar, et al. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given sources above, I'd say keep and wikify. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are bollywood gossip and rumour sites. That isn't good enough for a BLP. Ironholds (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think that the sources given above are not completely irrelevant, I don't think that the subject currently has sufficient notability to be featured in a separate article, because of the quality of the given sources (although it's probably enough for inclusion in Love Ne Milla Di Jodi). If the article had much information about him, I would consider an incubate or merge, but all that is really there now is about his character, and his place of birth. If/when enough sources can be found for him to be considered notable, then the article should be recreated in a form nothing like it is now. Jhbuk (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (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.