Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Shrawan

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. Looks like the discussion run out of steam and everyone got tired. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Shrawan[edit]

(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-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate that Shrawan has had numerous major (notable) roles. It suffers the problem of nearly all of our articles on Marathi-language pop culture in that the English-language sources about it are dreadful, but the solution to that (when the subject is notable) is a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker. This nomination is part of a mass-nomination of Marathi-language actresses with the same copied and pasted explanation - although a couple of them seem to have been actually non-notable, most of them had obvious claims to significance that had been lazily skimmed over. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources matter rather than vague hand-waves.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources already in the article indicate, with a bit of research, that she has had numerous notable roles. I don't speak Marathi, and the English-language sources about the whole area are universally-poor so the article needs someone who speaks the language. We don't delete articles on notable people just because their English-language coverage is poor - we fix the problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:17, 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 13:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A vote often carries more weight than other votes. I concede that the vote by Winged Blades of Godric weighs more than mine. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR as has prominent roles in film and television as evidenced in sources such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has had significant roles in "multiple notable" films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and I can't find a single reliable source that support her role in any film or tv serials listed in the article except What About Savarkar? which is not notable and nothing found to help her pass general notability guideline either. I'm open to change my vote if anyone can provide some independent reliable sources to support any notability criteria. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG, and facebook is not a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article completely lacks sources, in English or any other language, about the biography of the subject, from which we'd be able to gauge whether the notability criteria are met. Mentions-in-passing in newspaper columns about new movies hardly does it. -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Marathi Google results (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) suggest she has had enough significant roles in popular films and TV series to satisfy WP:NACTOR. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, you've given the keyword of non-trivial and standing coverage for a toss.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you're on about. --Michig (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 17 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.