Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuhina Das

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuhina Das

[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)

This one might prove difficult but I shall explain, after noticing it had been flagged for notability concerns by

WP:NACTOR as they haven’t featured in significant roles in multiple movies. Furthermore a before search also notes Times of India mentions her but the TOI is noted for its less than ethical practices and is no longer considered a reliable source. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. English sources are not the only ones that decide notability. --Peripatetic (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peripatetic, let’s start by you are the creator of this article so I understand the sentiment, in any case I have done an evaluation of the non English sources you provided below as you can see, Furthermore big font sizes do not change nor influence the outcome of an AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly looks like a keep to me, per
WP:BEFORE? Suriname0 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@Suriname0, when a source is deprecated there is no event or special circumstance wherein it becomes reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a recent decision I'm unaware of and

WP:TOI hasn't been updated yet, Times of India is not a deprecated source. Apologies if a missed a newer discussion! Suriname0 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment — below is an evaluation of the “sources”, provided above and the “piece” they optimized, all have been evaluated and still fall below the threshold of
WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
https://www.anandabazar.com/entertainment/exclusive-interview-of-actor-tuhina-das-dgtl-1.1171880	An interview is not independent of the subject of the article of the article thus doesn’t conform with GNG	Within the confines of GNG a piece cannot be considered reliable when it is an interview	~ Fairly decent interview	✘ No
https://bengali.news18.com/news/entertainment/interview-of-bengali-movie-actress-tuhina-das-am-394039.html	Sponsored content	A sponsored post cannot be considered reliable piece even if the source is a reliable one	A long pr sponsored post.	✘ No
https://zeenews.india.com/bengali/tags/তুহিনা-দাস.html	This isn’t a source it loads to the homepage of the website	This isn’t a source it loads to the homepage of the website	This isn’t a source it loads to the homepage of the website	? Unknown
https://www.magzter.com/stories/Celebrity/ANANDALOK/1580295534	I don’t see how subject of the article influences the outcome	Yet to develop a reputation for fact checking, the wording is akin to a self published blog	It fails to discuss with in-depth, the subject of the article rather it discusses events and the subject of the article.	✘ No
https://www.rtvonline.com/entertainment/137349/বর্ণবৈষম্যর-বিরুদ্ধে-তুহিনা-দাস	Subject doesn’t in any way influence the outcome	It’s a reliable source	The piece talks about racism and it just mentions that the subject of the article and another individual have spoken about it WP:GNG	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment — Above is an evaluation of the “sources”, provided above and the “piece” they optimized, all have been evaluated and still fall below the threshold of
WP:NACTOR is not satisfied at all or in any manner as the article’s subject is yet to feature in significant multiple roles and have not won a prestigious award reserved for actors. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep - there are non-
WP:NACTOR criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC) In addition to the upcoming film Aparajita, per TOI noted above, the trailer for Abhijaan was released in March 2021, and she has a 'crucial role,' per The Telegraph; according to The Indian Express, "A galaxy of acclaimed actors from Bengali film industry are in the cast." Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: A case of
WP:TOOSOON. While Beccaynr makes a good case that the subject could be notable in future, it does not meet the notability standards as of now. The non-trivial content provided by the above two articles is too less to keep under BASIC. May be draftified until there are significnt roles in multiple notable productions to meet NACTOR. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per Nom and Ab207. Although it may be
crystal ball. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Celestina007's source analysis is persuasive, but Baccaynr's sources have not been examined in detail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 11 August 2021 (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.