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. After discarding views not based on P&G, we're left with a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 12:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Malviya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Delete - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anyone provide coverage that would show notability so changing to a delete !vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [1], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as she is a notable actress and model who has gained significant recognition for her role in the popular television series "Udaariyaan," contributing to her widespread popularity. Additionally, her career achievements and public interest make her a relevant figure in the entertainment industry --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and Columbidae5's comment above. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 09:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please do not focus on the nominator and instead consider whether NACTOR is met and assess the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources are all passing mentions within routine announcements and contain zero biographical detail. Inclusion on Wikipedia is determined by sourcing, not by number of awards, award nominations, popularity, public interest or strong fanbase. The actress clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR.--Ilovetvshows (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is decent coverage, but it's quite short. [2], Still not quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Not seeing enough in-depth coverage that's not from poor quality sources or paid/churnalism. Ravensfire (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Starting to have some concerns that this is a bad-faith nomination by a sock / meat puppet of a blocked editor. My view still stands. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:SBST, "tabloid journalism is not significant coverage," and that's what this WP:REFBOMB of a promotional article is. Twenty-two citations are to the Times of India's tabloid entertainment channel ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]), which is considered an unreliable source per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. TellyChakkar ([25], [26]), Bollywood Hungama ([27], [28], [29]), TimesNowNews ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]), News18 ([37], [38], [39], [40]), Economic Times Panache blog section, Zee News, DNAIndia, and the rest have similar problems (search for these publications on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard). Several links are to WP:YOUTUBE which for these purposes is a primary source. Basically, there is no non-tabloid, non-affiliated, reliable-source WP:SIGCOV of this individual to satisfy the tests of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER.

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.