Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayatri Joshi

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Joshi

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

The actress is only-known for her role in Swades and no signiificant amount of coverages found for it. So better got it for its deletion nomination. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 February 2016‎

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

and through WP:INDAFD: "Gayatri Joshi" "गायत्री जोशी"

Looks to be wide coverage to meet WP:BASIC... hmmm... ? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As that singular film 12 years ago (mentioned as is proper in a BLP) is not the singular or sole assertion of notability, her failing WP:NACTOR is immaterial if it can be determined that she otherwise meets WP:BASIC or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO [1] for other facets of her life prior to and after acting, and if otherwise notable, she has plenty of time to in the future consider returning to film to then work up to that particular (and limited) SNG. Time for digging. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, clearly a celebrity in India, see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] --Soman (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soman We are not a newspaper portal and these sources are just implementing Yellow journalism. Event parties and launches doesn't signify its coverages and only one film over its lifetime. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage confirm notability. And yellow journalism is journalism still, whether you like it or not. What we conclude here is that the individual in question had 1) a modelling career prior to Swades (and there are a number of news coverage hits prior to 2004), 2) Rose to nation-wide fame with Swades, 3) withdrew from the film industry but has (as shown above) remained in the public spotlight still (mainly due to her short film career, in part due to her modelling/pageant career, in part due her family situation). We do have articles on reality show personalities, socialities etc., in situations were there is significant coverage of said individuals in independent sources. --Soman (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* She was widely covered 10 years ago as an actress, now covered as Page 3 celebrity. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we are even not promoting agency SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

promotional material may be removed from the article if any. but the subject meets WP:GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do note that the nominator, in clear breach of wiki-etiquette, stroke out both of the 'keep' comments. I reverted that edit. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and Userfy as although there may be enough, unless this is going to be outstandingly improved, this is still questionable as of this article's current status, so it's best moved aside until better. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 21 March 2016 (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.