Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naina Sarwar (2nd nomination)

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. While it was initially asserted that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, this was called into question on the basis that sourcing was promotional in nature, and discussion of sources strongly favored deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naina Sarwar

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Charlie (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is notable according to guidelines ; passing WP:NACTOR for at least 3 significant roles in notable films; and has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, which was not the case at the moment of the 1st Afd..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Might pass ACTOR with proper sourcing. Most of what I find is the thinly veiled promotional articles [1], [2], common in India, that don't help with the RS. If we can find better sourcing about her movie roles, I'd revisit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems ok [3] as it's a review of the film, confirming the role. But we need more than this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i think she passes the criteria WP:NACTOR but we need more reliable sources. the new indian express look like notable Worldiswide (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. fails WP:GNG. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Everything found, and thankfully it's not much, stinks badly of promotional purpose. Oaktree b's olfactory powers are well directed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO/CREATIVE. Nothing in article or keep votes provides WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed promos and name listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo interview	1. "Naina Sarwar makes a mark in all South Indian languages". New Indian Express. 8 April 2023. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Promo interview	2. ^ "Naina is Destiny's Favourite Child". New Indian Express. 4 August 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Name listed, nothing meeting SIGCOV	3. ^ "Kolanji movie review: Father-son bonding, lacks strong story". Deccan Chronicle. 27 July 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Name listed, nothing meeting SIGCOV	4. ^ "Eeswar's second film 'Suryapet Junction' completes the shoot!". The Times of India. 22 September 2022.
Promo interview	5. ^ "Naina Sarwar is set for her Telugu film debut". The Times of India. 23 August

BLPs require strong sourcing, might be a case of TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 14:48, 26 November 2023 (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.