Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rozlyn Khan

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rozlyn Khan

[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)

The subject in question fails WP:NACTOR, has appeared in 2 non-notable films and in my opinion does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. Fit India 15:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found significant English and Hindi language coverage from the likes of Times of India, The Free Press Journal, Hindustan Times, 9x Jalwa (spotboye.com) and Amar Ujala.[1][2][3][4][5][6]--Oakshade (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Under evaluation.∯WBG^converse 10:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is essentially just a PR/spam piece promoting the individual who doesn't meet WP:NACTOR in her own right, and hasn't done much as a model. The soruces provided above and those available in the article are nothing more than tabloid gossip-style coverage. The creator appears to have UPE issues as well based on some outer-wiki evidence. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons listed by @Oakshade:. I had a look at some of the articles and articles such as Rozlyn Khan angry with her molester getting bail are sufficient to meet WP:GNG for me. @GSS: - WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has sufficient independent coverage. It clearly passes WP:GNG.Knightrises10 (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy GNG. There are zero RS that provide more than a handful of sentences. (both in the article and above) wumbolo ^^^ 10:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the references provided above show much more than a "handful of sentences."--Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources provided above only give some superficial gossip-style coverage, not the in-depth coverage needed to satisfy GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just flat out false as they go in-depth on her biography, like the Hindustan Times article. [7]--Oakshade (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject and as Randykitty said above rest of the soruces only give some superficial gossip-style coverage, not the in-depth coverage that required to satisfy GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are in fact in-depth coverage by independent sources as it was the independent source that chose to interview the topic, further demonstrating notability. If it was as self-published interview, then it wouldn't be independent. Not the case here. But even without the interview coverage there is still very in-depth coverage by very reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of the sources in question would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. The sources used to establish notability here are not satisfactory so better delete. --Saqib (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Typical gossip-style-coverage.∯WBG^converse 06:37, 31 August 2018 (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.