Sangramsingh Thakur: Non-notable roles including an "electrician" in a web series.  Other references are just credits, mentions, or fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not done any lead role in films ... all roles are supporting/recurring roles , not passing WP:NACTOR Criteria till now .  thank you Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Just a note that the page was moved to draft space for just over 3 days.  I've restored it to main space, as articles should not be draftified during a deletion discussion.  I'm quite surprised nobody noticed.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hey man im josh : , Thanks for moving back.  I did notice and notified the admin who was involved in the discussion on the talk page of the article but looks like they have not been editing in a few days.  Appreciate you taking care of this as I wasn't sure if a simple move would have restored everything.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, @ CNMall41 & @ Hey man im josh , I'm travelling, forgot to put up a notification! Valereee ( talk ) 11:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Valereee : , no big deal. I didn't ping anyone else as I figured it wasn't life or death. Cheers!-- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  More participation would be welcome here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable.  The Nagpur Today refs look like reliable, significant coverage.  The xpresstimes.in ref is pay-to-play.  Others refs seem independent and reliable but are either too short to establish notability or just passing mentions.  Nagpur is a city the size of Brussels but Sangramsingh Thakur is still a Nagpur "hometown boy".  It's reasonable that Nagpur Today would cover him in-depth when out-of-town media give more limited attention.  This gives us enough to write a reliable article about Thakur and reliability is the ultimate motivation behind our notability guidelines.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability cannot be established by articles in one publication. The references in The Nagpur Today also fall under the same principles as WP:RSNOI as they do not appear to be written by staff writers. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CNMall41 , here's what the notability guideline says: "…a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." ( Notability#Notes , footnote 4) My interpretation is that "a series of publications" does not refer to 2 or more unconnected articles.  I think footnote 4 refers to serialized content (for example, a 3-day, 3-part series on a given topic).  In that case, that footnote does not apply to this subject.  Over the course of 100s of AfDs [4] [5] , I've never seen this footnote invoked before until this and another AfD today .  That makes me think this is a narrow rule, otherwise, we'd be tossing out articles just because a subject's multiple references are only to New York Times articles or only to Economist articles.  As for WP:RSNOI , that guidance does not rule out using articles without bylines; it suggests that lack of a byline may be an indication of paid, promotional content.  When I read the Nagpur Today articles, they did not appear to be paid content.  It'll be interesting to read how others view these 2 issues.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the reply.  What I am saying is if a single publication is the only one running stories that would count towards notability, we shouldn't just keep a page based on that.  If the person is worthy of notice, they would receive coverage elsewhere as well.  As far as RSNOI, you are correct that it does not rule out articles without bylines.  It does however state "exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability ."  We have to look at each reference individually.  Outside of The Nagpur Today, the references that talk in-depth about the subject are Outlook India with a byline of IANS which is a "guest post" and has no editorial oversight (I would consider this akin to WP:FORBESCON ) and Xpress Times which is clearly marked as "brandspot" at the top with the byline of "Express Times Team" indicating churnalism.  The others are mentions and bios.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with A.B.'s comments above and, given the coverage the actor has received, think the page could be retained. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just using one example, would agree that this source counts towards notability?  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:NEWSORGINDIA.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:30, 9 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep