Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheena Bajaj

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 redirect to Best Of Luck Nikki. v/r - T P 01:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Bajaj[edit]

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

Contested BLPPROD. This article cites no sources, and certainly doesn't establish notability. The subject has had small parts in a few films, but fails WP:NACTOR. St Anselm (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Gravitoweak (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable. Vincelord (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Being an actor in television commercials is not a notability unless those appearances have for some reason themselves caught the eye of reliable sources, as they did with Rodney Allen Rippy. A child star is not notable as a star unless also catching the eye of reliable sources offering some detail beyond simple mentions. I find her name for the most part found in forums and networking sites.[1] And while some of her work can be minimally confirmed, the most I can find toward even a hint of notability is in Business Standard just today calling her a "promising" new star upon her joining Best Of Luck Nikki.[2] Redirecting to that series as something for which she is least sourcable[3] sends the reader to a place where she might be reasonable mentioned in context to the series... and will suffice until such time as this youngster's career grows and she meets ENT or GNG. Essentially, this article is TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In addition to the article failing WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, the article is poorly written and needs a big re-write in order to become appropriately encyclopedic. In other words, no. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:58, 4 December 2011 (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.