Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonal Monteiro

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. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonal Monteiro[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)

there seems to be at most one significant role (in Panchatantra),which is not enough for notability . The interviews in the Times ofIndia are PR fluff. We should not be fooled by the name of the publication DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article already includes several press articles as sources and many more can be found if you search for recent news.--Ipigott (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG. Dismissing sources as PR fluff is highly subjective and would, if applied to biographies across this sector, pointlessly remove thousands of articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The sources are PR fluff, not substantial reliable sources, as is common in the industry. It is perfectly true that theis might mean the deletion of several huundred articles, unless there can be some objective evidence. We have been much too indicriminate in this general area, and that we have been so lax, is good reason why we should be so no longer. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination, QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage exists to establish notability: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Some of these are brief but they confirm multiple starring roles. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Meets WP:NACTOR. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:NACTOR. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:41, 27 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.