| Revision as of 07:44, 11 March 2015 editStalwart111 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,939 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:13, 11 March 2015 edit undoAKS.9955 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,222 edits →Mansi Dovhal: CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| :::::<small>I'm just pointing at that dead body over there and then at the person over here. I'm not ''saying'' he did it, it's just my observation. Best just to steer well clear of anything even remotely accusatory, yeah?</small> | :::::<small>I'm just pointing at that dead body over there and then at the person over here. I'm not ''saying'' he did it, it's just my observation. Best just to steer well clear of anything even remotely accusatory, yeah?</small> | ||
| ::::*Because people can create articles about non-notable things so the sourcing becomes circular. She is notable because the films have articles and the films are notable because the actors have articles. When in reality, none of them are notable. That's why ]. There's one article about the first film, yes, but it doesn't talk about her role - it says she was the female lead. It simply lists her name without explaining whether it was a significant role. Being the female lead in a mostly all-male B-grade film wouldn't count for much. If the role was significant, it's a different story, but we would need reliable sources that say as much. It's not about the quality of the film or the film's article but about the significance of the film. The second film barely has an article and only the subject here is linked from the cast list. The source you provide says quite plainly that, ''"The film can't boast of established stars, so the item number by Rakhi Sawant is its biggest attraction"'' which actually suggests all of the other actors in the film aren't notable, even by local Hindi film standards. So we don't have reliable sources that suggest she is notable but we have at least one that suggests she ''isn't''. I've explained the concerns about the IMUSTI source, but you've not addressed those - you've just listed it again. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | ::::*Because people can create articles about non-notable things so the sourcing becomes circular. She is notable because the films have articles and the films are notable because the actors have articles. When in reality, none of them are notable. That's why ]. There's one article about the first film, yes, but it doesn't talk about her role - it says she was the female lead. It simply lists her name without explaining whether it was a significant role. Being the female lead in a mostly all-male B-grade film wouldn't count for much. If the role was significant, it's a different story, but we would need reliable sources that say as much. It's not about the quality of the film or the film's article but about the significance of the film. The second film barely has an article and only the subject here is linked from the cast list. The source you provide says quite plainly that, ''"The film can't boast of established stars, so the item number by Rakhi Sawant is its biggest attraction"'' which actually suggests all of the other actors in the film aren't notable, even by local Hindi film standards. So we don't have reliable sources that suggest she is notable but we have at least one that suggests she ''isn't''. I've explained the concerns about the IMUSTI source, but you've not addressed those - you've just listed it again. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::*]: So this is what I understood from your last message. 1) That the '''non-notable''' films and the actors are in sort of loop and supporting each other for '''notability''' whereas standalone none of them are notable. So this actor and all the movies she has worked in are non-notable? 2) Lead role is a movie is '''NOT''' a significant role. 3) Actors who do not perform lead roles in notable movies should not have an article?? 4) Being lead B grade movie does not qualify for GNG or ACTOR?? 5) Sources like ] and ] are not reliable and independent. 6) Significance: What exactly is significance? 7) Rakhi Sawant is the biggest attraction; and what exactly is the point?? By that standard, 50% of Bollywood movies should not have an article on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :: What I am trying to understand which '''rule, policy or guideline''' of Misplaced Pages confirms what I just summarized above? Let me assure you that I am the last person to keep an unwarranted article on Misplaced Pages. Last year I created a page for ] and I immediately realized that perhaps it should not be on Misplaced Pages and nominated it for deletion. What you are writing above is your own interpretation of the situation and you are ignoring facts. Thanks, ''']]''' 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:13, 11 March 2015
Mansi Dovhal
- Mansi Dovhal (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)
Subject of the article fail WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in reliable sources that established the subject notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON if ever. WP:IMDB is not a reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy 11:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: Nominator failed to notice the coverage provided in the article itself. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Inclusion of subject on wikipedia is beyond a passing mention and notability is not inherited. Evidence of subject notability is not the same as evidence of subject existence. Evidence of subject notability requires a wide discussions of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. A passing mention is enough for evidence of subject existence which you had shown in your article under deletion discussion here. When she becomes notable for her work in the future, we may consider a stand-alone article but too soon to be a subject of encyclopedic. Wikic¤l¤gy 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy 11:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The sources provided is just an evidence that she's doing her job as a non-notable actress and not an evidence of meeting our inclusion criteria.
- I took my time to check the references/sources one-by-one. Ref 1 is WP:IMDB and that is not a reliable source. Ref 2 discussed the movie titled "Rakhtbeej" in detail and not the subject of the article. Ref 5 is a mere photo-gallery of Aamir Khan. Ref 4 and 6 discussed the same Aamir Khan in detail with a passing mention of the subject of this article and everyone will agree with me that notability is not inherited. Ref 7 look promising but not enough to merit an encyclopedic article for now, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
| Off-topic discussion |
|---|
|
- Delete - I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. Passing reference to her in articles about other actors and other films isn't "significant coverage". There is nowhere near enough biographical information there with which to build a reliably sourced article with verified claims. I suppose it might be possible for her to pass WP:NACTOR if it can be demonstrated that the roles she has had are significant enough. But the articles for the films in question are in worse shape than hers. There is no way to know if her roles were major roles or minor roles and what little coverage there is doesn't tell us anything. St★lwart 01:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Stalwart111: Actress has played lead / major roles in movies and have been credited to her as cited in references provided. What has the commercial success of a movie got to do with notability; can you please explain your remark "...the films in question are in worse shape than hers"? It might be a coincidence but I noticed that the nominator of this article and you have some history together. At this point, I am not saying this is a case of WP:GANG and am merely highlighting the observation. I am surprised to note that a nominator makes a mistake, then instead of correcting it ignores the references provided despite his own terrible personal record and now I have to see this. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- For a start, two people disagreeing with you isn't a tag-team. I've made exactly one comment in this discussion; this is my second. We don't have "history together"; we were both drawn into the same (major) sock-puppetry investigation involving what could turn out to be one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific sock-puppeteers and efforts by dozens of editors (which happens to include the two of us) and admins to stop him. I regularly participate at AFD (as noted on my user page) and so my participation here is not at all out of the ordinary. Assumptions of bad faith and attempts to drag this discussion away from the topic at hand won't help. All of that aside, if you read carefully, I said, "the articles for the films in question are in worse shape than hers". WP:NACTOR requires, significant roles in multiple notable films. It's not clear to me whether any of those films are notable, given most of their articles are unreferenced. The one source used for the majority of content in this article would seem to be at last partially based on this article (or the other way around) and possibly user-generated. IMDB and other sources like it are not considered reliable sources. Even then, that one single instance of significant coverage wouldn't be enough anyway. So we don't have enough for WP:GNG and we can't make a determination with regard to WP:NACTOR. If you can stick to the topic at hand (rather than conspiracy theories) I'm happy to consider whatever you can bring forward in either regard. St★lwart 05:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Stalwart111: To begin with, I never accused you for anything; just stated my observation (read up). Don't get me wrong please. Coming back to the subject, this news article about movie Trump Card clearly mentions her as the female lead (same words quoted) whereas this article about movie Rakhtbeej talks about her role in the film which by any means is not a "day role" or "cameo". Another write-up talks about summary of some of her work. Aren't these significant roles in multiple movies? Four of her movies have articles on Misplaced Pages; well if the films were not notable; why would the pages exist. Discussion about quality of the movie is totally irrelevant for this discussion. Trust this explains. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just pointing at that dead body over there and then at the person over here. I'm not saying he did it, it's just my observation. Best just to steer well clear of anything even remotely accusatory, yeah?
- Because people can create articles about non-notable things so the sourcing becomes circular. She is notable because the films have articles and the films are notable because the actors have articles. When in reality, none of them are notable. That's why Misplaced Pages isn't a reliable source. There's one article about the first film, yes, but it doesn't talk about her role - it says she was the female lead. It simply lists her name without explaining whether it was a significant role. Being the female lead in a mostly all-male B-grade film wouldn't count for much. If the role was significant, it's a different story, but we would need reliable sources that say as much. It's not about the quality of the film or the film's article but about the significance of the film. The second film barely has an article and only the subject here is linked from the cast list. The source you provide says quite plainly that, "The film can't boast of established stars, so the item number by Rakhi Sawant is its biggest attraction" which actually suggests all of the other actors in the film aren't notable, even by local Hindi film standards. So we don't have reliable sources that suggest she is notable but we have at least one that suggests she isn't. I've explained the concerns about the IMUSTI source, but you've not addressed those - you've just listed it again. St★lwart 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Stalwart111: So this is what I understood from your last message. 1) That the non-notable films and the actors are in sort of loop and supporting each other for notability whereas standalone none of them are notable. So this actor and all the movies she has worked in are non-notable? 2) Lead role is a movie is NOT a significant role. 3) Actors who do not perform lead roles in notable movies should not have an article?? 4) Being lead B grade movie does not qualify for GNG or ACTOR?? 5) Sources like Times are India and The Hindu are not reliable and independent. 6) Significance: What exactly is significance? 7) Rakhi Sawant is the biggest attraction; and what exactly is the point?? By that standard, 50% of Bollywood movies should not have an article on Misplaced Pages.
- What I am trying to understand which rule, policy or guideline of Misplaced Pages confirms what I just summarized above? Let me assure you that I am the last person to keep an unwarranted article on Misplaced Pages. Last year I created a page for Mehr Tarar and I immediately realized that perhaps it should not be on Misplaced Pages and nominated it for deletion. What you are writing above is your own interpretation of the situation and you are ignoring facts. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)