Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harshada Pathare (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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harshada Pathare (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 on Harshada Pathare fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors and filmmakers. The references cited are primarily from non-independent or low-quality sources, such as News24, Yahoo Finance, and promotional platforms like the Tagore International Film Festival’s own website. These sources lack the depth and reliability required to establish significant coverage or independent notability. Additionally, the article has a promotional tone, which violates Unambiguous Advertising or Promotion. The subject's notable achievements, including awards and books, are not adequately supported by independent, verifiable sources.

There is also a possible Conflict of Interest, as this subject has a significant creation and deletion history dating back to 2018, with five drafts and one main space article being deleted under G11. It is unlikely that this repeated effort to create the article is coincidental, especially considering the subject's limited notability as evidenced by their sparse Google presence. This raises questions about why multiple attempts have been made to establish this page, despite a lack of substantial independent coverage.

Upon further investigation, the creator of this page appears to have a pattern of creating articles with extensive personal data, often citing only one or two references. This raises concerns about verifiability and how the creator is obtaining such detailed information when it is not publicly available. These issues, combined with the lack of reliable, independent sources and a promotional tone, warrant deletion of this article for failing to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, neutrality, and verifiability. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete All the sources in this article run afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA - unless some better sources can be found that confirm notability we should probalby delete. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references provided for Harshada Pathare are from reliable and trusted portals supporting the notability. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 07:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately WP:NEWSORGINDIA inducates that, as they regularly do PR pieces for undisclosed pay most Indian news publications are insufficient to establish notability. So far there are only Indian news sources and primary sources here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no opinion on the subject but NEWSORGINDIA does not say that exactly. Indian sources are perfectly acceptable if the media outlet that published them is reliable and they seem independent enough. -Mushy Yank. 02:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of people, companies and entities of borderline notability. seems pretty clear to me. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it’s pretty clear, although incomplete; but that’s NOT exactly what you said. And that does NOT contradict what I said. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources listed mention/review any of her works, most of which seems to be vanity/self published, hence fails WP:POET. Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Info Indian sources are generally acceptable as long as the media outlet is considered reliable and the reporting appears independent and well-sourced. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep this info and RS are keepable or notable according to WP guidelines StoryReader1999 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Struck vote by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• How, exactly do they show that she passes WP:POET, which would seem to be the most relevant? Spike 'em (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2024 (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.