Talk:Meetha Raghunath

Notability

@Kailash29792:, I am not seeing what has changed since the last deletion discussion. Is there a new role that I missed? CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the inclusion of a very in-depth article by Indulgexpress. I also found this but have yet to add. Kailash29792 (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Both of these are interviews so I do not believe they can be used to established notability. Were there any additional roles since the last AfD?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No. But I do not think lthe last time the article mentioned her SIIMA nomination for Good Night. I just found this but have yet to add it. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I would disagree on notability. There is nothing that has really happened since the last AfD which would show how she's notable. It is also now full of unreliable sources, interviews, churnalism. Anyways, I don't plan on nominating at the moment in hopes of giving it time for her to get more press or another role maybe. Wish I was able to search non-English sources as there is nothing in English suitable for notability at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@CNMall41: In non-English sources, everything is about her marriage mostly . Anyways, the article was restored on the basis of WP:NACTOR regardless of sources after I noticed that another article was kept for WP:NACTOR despite no reliable sources, see . Also, found another "reliable" unreliable source (since it's first person). I didn't notice the JFW award and Kailash has done a good job expanding the article. DareshMohan (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That actually changes my thought process and maybe this should go to AfD. The other discussion does not negate NACTOR and in fact the keep arguments are claiming inherent notability which should never satisfy NACTOR. A source where someone is talking in the first person is not a secondary reliable source. Expanding the article is good, but someone is not notable for their marriage. Are there any other sources that may be considered significant (non-interview, non-primary, etc.)?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't find such a source. You are welcome to open another AfD, but I feel three lead roles/a award nomination should satisfy WP:NACTOR. All I see are passing mentions: . Are you looking for an indepth secondary source, can you provide an example for Indian actors, so it is clear? DareshMohan (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That's the thing, even in the AfD you provided a reference to, the closer stated that it is not inherent, yet they decided to go against guidelines anyway. Here, there are only passing mentions as you say so that would not satisfy NACTOR or GNG. For NACTOR, there still needs to be more than just passing mentions as being nominated for an award or having multiple roles does not make someone automatically notable.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"NACTRESS is not an auto-keep and while provides guidance on when an individual is notable, the individual must still meet GNG and WP:NBIO" - Direct from the AfD you referenced.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Some of the voting in these has raised eyebrows recently due to the inherent notability arguments. This will also likely need to go to a noticeboard for clarification as vote counts should not be used, only policy-based argument votes. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)