Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manaswini Lata Ravindra

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. Significant press coverage existence has been proven in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manaswini Lata Ravindra[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Hiwilms (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1] and [2] both look like RSes to me. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? The DNA India page is pretty well promotion, and when I click on your other link I get a page that tries to sell me an "app", and showing a small part of a page related to the subject of this article as a teaser. If I try to scroll to see more of that fragment of a page it moves out of sight, and another one moves into its place to tempt me to download the app. The small part of the page that I can see doesn't remotely begin to be substantial coverage of the subject of the article under discussion, and without installing the app I have no way of knowing whether the rest does, so that at the very least it fails to be verifiable. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[3] is a better link for the India today one—sorry I couldn't find that earlier. But you may be right that they're not enough in terms of sources—I'm not familiar enough to say Gaelan 💬✏️ 16:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable substantial independent coverage in any reliable source anywhere, cited in the article, provided in this discussion, or found in my searches. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has been covered by any independent sources like Hindutan Times, Times of India, India Today, and regional publications of repute like Maharashtra Times, Kalnirnay and Loksatta. Granted, the sources in Marathi but she is a notable playwright in the language. The page does need a bit of cleanup, which I will help with. SerTanmay (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources have been provided and the article has been updated since the nomination.More sources can be added to improve upon it. iamvardhana (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + the sourcing looks fine to me and she’s clearly notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2019 (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.