Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Mehra

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Murph9000 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Mehra

Rohan Mehra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. I'm not certain that there's even a WP:CCS right now, so it is possibly even eligible for WP:CSD A7. It's been around for a while, and has had a chunk of content stripped recently, so I'm opting for AfD on the basis that there might, maybe, be something in history to invalidate CSD. Murph9000 (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it only narrowly avoids WP:BLPPROD in its current state, with a single source which is only cited against a single, isolated fact. The main content (i.e. the prose) is entirely unsourced. Murph9000 (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator — The article now appears to verifiably pass WP:NBIO, due to significant changes made to it today. I am therefore withdrawing my nomination. Murph9000 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], more. Anup [Talk] 14:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject might meet those, but I believe the article fails in its current state. I'm not certain that the content has ever properly established notability, from a very quick browse of the history, although there might be some WP:CCS in history. Murph9000 (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Murph9000: That's not really how we assess notability of a topic on Wikipedia. It is not the article contents or sources present in there, but existence of sources for a particular topic what in present case has already been provided by me above. Anup [Talk] 17:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anup: My point is that if the notability is there, the article should clearly establish it with good inline citations. This article has been around for a long time, barely makes a WP:CCS, does not clearly demonstrate notability, and is almost entirely unsourced. If it was submitted as an AfC draft today, in its current form, it would almost certainly be rejected. Failing to clearly demonstrate verifiable notability after two years makes me sincerely doubt that the notability really exists. Please do prove me wrong on that, by fixing the major problems with the article. With the exception of one table row, the article is WP:UNSOURCED, leaving all of its content open to challenge and deletion, and basically on the wrong side of BLP policy and guidelines. Murph9000 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused.. the article in its present shape makes a solid claim of notability (you can try to A7 it). That was "before" in past when article probably didn't make any claim of significance. Anyway, a simple Google search reveals tons of sources for the subject. It seems like you did not perform WP:BEFORE.

And to be blunt, I'd term it a ridiculous assumption if you are still questioning the existence of notability after seeing multiple reliable sources in my !keep rationale. I partly gets what are you asking for, and I will throw in there some refs from mine previous find. If you are still not satisfied, there is nothing I can do. We should better wait for others to jump in and weigh in their opinion.

Unrelated note: you pinged my secondary account. if you hover on my signed account name for few seconds it will reveal my username as, Anupmehra (I'm unrelated to topic under discussion. In India, last name is not really family name, it's a bit complex). Anup [Talk] 00:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: Sorry for pinging the wrong username, an unintentional error pasting the wrong part of your sig into the ping. The article has changed significantly since my last comment. It does now have a verifiable notability claim, and significantly improved sourcing in general, so I have withdrawn my nomination. At the time of nomination, based on the evidence reasonably easily available to me, it looked like notability may well have been lacking, and the tag for lack of notability had been present for almost 2 years (added shortly after it was created in 2014, then apparently ignored). Had I been certain that notability was lacking, I would have just tagged it under CSD. Since it was unclear due to the long standing problems with the article, AfD seemed like the best way to address the issue.

In essence, I was challenging most of the prose in the article as WP:UNSOURCED (and therefore eligible for removal), and the burden to address that is not with the challenger. With much of the prose disqualified due to lack of sourcing, notability came into question. The issue needed to be pushed, as the article was not in compliance with WP:BLP policy. I did see your sources here, but they needed to be in the article. Thanks for significantly improving the verifiability of the article.

Murph9000 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added a contemporary source for the subject having his current role in the soap opera. I'll defer to the two of you as to whether this is enough to pass the notability hurdle. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 30 September 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.