Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhishek 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Bajaj

[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)

The subject fails to pass notability (WP:GNG) and the content is written in a promotional format (WP:PROMO). Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep or Draftify: I presume the nominator is satisfied that WP:NACTOR is met, as am I. I don't think the tone of the article is promotional, though; however, it could certainly be cleaned up a bit. Regarding WP:GNG, the subject does seem to be getting quite a lot of media coverage, including this The Indian Express write-up and many Times of India write-ups; the second Times of India reference provided in article doesn't seem too bad. There's also a lot of coverage from less reliable news outlets, as well as passing mentions from outlets like Deccan Chronicle, and The Hindustan Times covered his wedding. Though not optimal, I think a weak argument could be made for WP:GNG, and, combined with the strong argument for WP:NACTOR, I don't think deletion is necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Having thought about this a bit more, I do think the article is worth keeping, or, as an alternative, moving it to "draftspace". Dflaw4 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR - no notable roles, contribution or coverage.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First line on WP:ANYBIO: A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. WP:NACTOR is met as said by Dflaw4 above. Mr. Smart LION 14:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Seems to be borderline notable. It would still be worth drafting and improving until it's 100% passable though IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SIGCOV, not a notable actor. Drat8sub (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Does not meet WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 07:57, 29 May 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.

Abhishek Bajaj

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.