Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parvati Sehgal (actress)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ♠PMC(talk) 07:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parvati Sehgal (actress)[edit]

Parvati Sehgal (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NACTOR. The subject has appeared in only few television soap operas and reality TV shows and seems to be WP:TOOSOON. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The subject has had several recurring roles in Indian soap operas—and I don't think soap operas are any less notable than any other television program; in fact, they probably reach a wider audience in some instances. I think the cumulative effect of these recurring roles is enough to make out WP:NACTOR. The subject also has a number of Times of India write-ups dedicated to her, most of which are already provided in the article, which go towards WP:GNG. So, overall, I think there is enough to merit a "Weak Keep" for this particular article. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the utter lack of independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:29, 17 March 2020 (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.