Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lekha Prajapati (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lekha Prajapati

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Lekha Prajapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not improved significantly since the last AfD, with only five or six reliable sources covering it, some of which provide only trivial mentions. It fails WP:NACTOR. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First AFD, was closed as soft delete, and article was probably about some other actress or person, since this individual has been seen on films/web from 2019, and it first AFD was in 2017 not sure why first nomination is being considered for nomination Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Keep – Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG

1. Significant Roles in Notable Films & Web Series Lekha Prajapati has played key roles in commercially successful and widely released films, meeting the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR. Some of her notable works include:

In addition to her film roles, she has worked in prominent web series and digital content, making her a notable actress across multiple platforms, not just a one-time performer.

2. Multiple Independent Reliable Sources Coverage about Lekha Prajapati has appeared in multiple reliable sources that meet Wikipedia’s WP:RS guidelines, including:

These sources provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions, confirming her growing industry relevance.

3. Sustained Industry Presence & Recognition Lekha has been regularly featured in media interviews, film promotions, and publicized for her performances. Unlike minor actors with brief appearances, she has recurring roles in notable films.

4. Precedent & Fairness Many actors with similar or lesser credentials already have Wikipedia articles. Deleting this article would be inconsistent with existing precedents and unfairly dismiss an actress actively working in major productions. Thus Lekha Prajapati meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG through multiple significant roles, substantial media coverage, and continued relevance in the Indian film industry. Deleting her article would be premature and inconsistent with Wikipedia’s existing standards. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Shubhamgawali1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Blocked for abusing multiple accounts and likely undisclosed paid editing.[reply]

  • Delete: only few sources are not enough to eastablish notability guidelines, and the actress didn't play role in multiple significant (WP:NFO) films.Hellorld4 (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How are you taking NFO here since NFO is films related not the cast?
    3 popular web series, multiple music videos, one web show, and more than 3 films in supporting roles, I think thats the criteria for Wikipedia article of the actors.
    about the sources, I’ve added the most I could find. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The BLP clearly passes WP:NActor, which requires significant roles and not just LEAD roles. It also passes GNG as sources are secondary and reliable. Davidindia (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply a human answer, and not an AI-generated one. Geschichte (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geschichte (talk) Are you talking about my "Keep". Every word is written by me after carefully checking and doing research. Some words are copied from NActor... I am not sure where you get this idea that my post is AI generated. Unfortunately, many people, including many respected senior editors, are not spending enough time and are simply trying to delete pages... I have observed that many worthy pages suffered this fate! Please do show some faith in juniors! Davidindia (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please refrain from using an LLM to phrase your arguments here. Your own words, even in a language not native to you, carry more weight than those of a machine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: A non-trivial amount of coverage found in Indian media [1] this article isn't bad, while the rest are interviews, she does seem to be well-known. Oaktree b (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR who did not play significant roles and I did not find any critical acclaim, achievement and full fledged review on any roles the subject played, in any secondary independent reliable sources. If anyone does find any such source, please let me know to review them. RangersRus (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She has full recurring role in City of Dreams (TV series), and in 2 films as well, so NACTOR is already passed, significant coverage for few roles is in the media I’ve cited available. The bigg bull movie she has recurring role throughout film. Also Rafuchakkar throughout the series, so NACTOR can not be reason to delete. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say She has full recurring role in City of Dreams (TV series) and yet not a single critical review on that page shows any mention or critique about her role? This is because it is not significant role. You have to prove that the roles she played were significant that got significant coverage, appreciation, and achievement. RangersRus (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about having played roles in multiple notable films and pan-India web-shows? Even though if they are not having entirely dedicated sourced, I think 100s of articles on Wikipedia about such actors can be found. I agree with she doesn’t have independently discussing source over her characters, but many about mentions and notability giving it her characters Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even creator agrees that "she doesn’t have independently discussing source over her characters." Simply having significant roles is not enough. There still needs to be independent coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lekha_Prajapati_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1282951870"