Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aarthi Aggarwal

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. Closing early because the outcome is obvious. Sandstein 15:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aarthi Aggarwal

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

The two tabloid sources are mirrors of each other. They only confirm her death, and do not grant her notability in doing so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, This page was created in 2007 and available in 2 other languages also. - User:varmapak 14:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comment Pace to her fans, of course, but unfortunately the only notable thing she has done is... died. And even then, the only sources covering it are tabloids- and all they discuss is her death, not her career. As such, this one event cannot constitute her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete as there is no significant and notable coverage aside from her recent death and although News found some old news links it's nothing outstanding. There isn't even that much at IMDb and that can often show the level of attention they've gotten (so how much can Wikipedia add to it?). SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has acted in lead role in about 20 films and this article is live since 2007.--Anoopkn (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion about keeping or deleting the article. I just want to know why the article is titled Aarthi Aggarwal (two "g"s) when she is referred to throughout the article, and by all but one of the references, as Aarthi Agarwal (one "g")? If the article is kept this needs to be straightened out. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, my doctor in Leyton is also called Agarwal. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has been moved to Aarthi Agarwal, with a redirect left behind. — Wylie pedia 02:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless people think her race or ethnic origin make her non-notable, which I would personally find offensive. 174.89.105.239 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the status of this article (for now), but I don't see how this relates to her race or ethnic origin in any way. Tony Z. Tan (via ALT acct.) · talk 19:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Tan (alt) (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep. Notable. Djflem (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has acted in about 20 films, and, more important, shared screen with several big stars of Indian South, like Chiranjeevi, for example, Bacus15 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are references to assert notability.--Racklever (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - this AfD blows. Articles like this one confirm her notability - and as the article clearly states, she was primarily a star in Telugu films; OBVIOUSLY, you should immediately think to look for Telugu sources (and possibly Gujarati). Nominator Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi completely failed WP:BEFORE in creating this nom. To say dying was "the only notable thing she has done" is abhorrent and an indicator that nominator should probably not make any more AfDs until he/she gets a clue. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cretinous comments such as the above do nothing to improve the notability of the article- when I nominated it, it was two mirror-sources, both tabloid. I have in fact, despite nominating it here, also found sourced material and added it. So if you'd actually looked at the article history, before making remarks such as this, people might think you an editor rather than a dumbass. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, it so happens sometimes that the only coverage they got was for their death. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she notable enough I'm sure you can find more information from the Telugu language Wikipedia.Redsky89 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She had the female lead role in multiple notable films, and was a major actress in several others. She clearly passes the notability guidelines for actors. I would have to say that I was nearly turned off by some of the arguments to keep above. The fact that the article has existed since 2007 proves nothing. In fact guidelines for inclusion were looser back than then they are now. Also, sharing screen time with a "big name actor" does not make one notable. Lastly I find the attempt to accuse the proposer of racism to be not only a violation of guidelines on assuming good intent but an unjustified injection of race into the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NACTOR with multiple significant and even major roles in multiple notable films. Cavarrone 09:35, 7 June 2015 (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.