Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poonam Jhawer (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Jhawer

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)

No sign of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since a couple of weeks after it was created, over a year ago. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing at all. bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:NACTOR with her significant roles in Aanch and OMG.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base the claim that she had a significant role in Aanch? The only secondary and independent source in that article (a review of the film) doesn't even mention her. In OMG, her role was not insignificant, but also not a major role. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not lead but significant, you surely mean? https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/female-spiritual-leader-inspired-poonam-jhawars-role/articleshow/16587850.cms she; is obviously in the main cast of Aanch, given the character she plays, hard to call the role not significant https://www.tvguide.com/movies/aanch/cast/2000123959/ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, WP:NACTOR does not mean someone is inherently notable. It means that coverage is likely to exist if they meet one of those conditions. The sources still need to be present and unfortunately they are not in this case. The TOI reference on the page is a short mention, the second is unreliable, the third is TABLOID and based on social media or information provided by the subject. The above TOI is more about the show and not here so just a brief mention and TV Guide only confirms a role. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nominator's reasoning.Charlie (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage in secondary independent reliable sources and the subject is not well-known who has played a major role significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:13, 10 October 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.