Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarah Azhari

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 26 January 2022 (Wasn't a sockpuppetry allegation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:53, 26 January 2022 by Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs) (Wasn't a sockpuppetry allegation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Sarah Azhari

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:NACTOR. Noting IMDb is not an acceptable source. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete: this article mentions little aside from controversies she's involved in. I don't think this follows WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE policies and I didn't turn up anything (in English) that could help balance it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete: For the very same reasons given by asilvering. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete - I'm really not finding much in a Google search that would help (string: "Sarah azhari"). I don't know Indonesian, but it's not hard to suss out the loanwords "Foto" and "Gossip", and what few sources I've turned Google Translate on are scandal-raggy in tone. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 05:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep - When researching Sarah Azhari on Google Indonesia articles about her are found and her works are found on every possible big platform, press and even mentioned in books. Who really knows about Indonesia knows of Sarah Azhari and the Azhari family works in both movies, sitcom and music that are nonetheless a great part of history in Indonesian culture and society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

95% of all links Google pulls up are not acceptable sources, and as she is still a living person merely claiming those sources exist is not enough. They must be provided directly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 06:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

as you mentioned, you don't talk Indonesian ... so I find it outstanding for you to analyze google researches in Indonesian language, in less than few minutes to assest 90% of the google search articles in indonesian regarding the matter are not relevant and do not prove notability... wondering if you have any magic forces to drive your amazing intuition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The very nature of Google (and Internet search engines as a whole) means that it will pull literally everything that seems to be somewhat relevant and put it into the search results, hence my blanket statement about Google searches. The 95% figure is from over a decade of experience editing Misplaced Pages and looking for sources for various topics, and I see no reason why the Indonesian-language Google search would be any different from the English-language one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 08:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because you are not Indonesian? so to me, your hypothesis that 95% of the entire google engine articles regarding a topic are just trashy gossip is just an understatement which sounds to me as someone that has YES, has an incredible amount of years of experience in working in Misplaced Pages and congratulations for that, but also assuming to know more than they do about a particular topic? and using their own judgment, despite actual facts that lacks of actual fundamental proof which could simply come from researching a bit deeper in a big cultural aspects of an entire nation cultural artifacts in movies and entertainment ? https://en.wikipedia.org/21_Cineplex - https://21cineplex.com/slowmotion/sarah-azhari-kebagian-peran-dadakan,364.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That source is unusable (unknown provenance). Who actually wrote it? (Google Translate does a fair job with Indonesian, by the way, and most of the article appears to be Shit She Says and wouldn't be useful for notability or biographical claims on that basis alone.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v 09:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It is definetely published on the official https://en.wikipedia.org/21_Cineplex website, which for indonesians is equivalent to an AMC. If being on a big screen is not notability enough then we can proceed here and here where the authors do argue an extensive value point of Indonesian censor basing their arguments on Sarah's modeling career, as well as her sisters and other women which caused an exponential amount of controversy in Indonesian culture, the book won the "Ruth Benedict Prize" https://en.wikipedia.org/Ruth_Benedict_Prize#:~:text=The%20Ruth%20Benedict%20Prize%20is,bisexual%2C%20or%20transgender%20topic%22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 10:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
theres many many academic books. pages, researches who based their entire studies on marketing aspects, sociological aspect, religious aspects, cultural aspects of the works and examining Sarah's personality, works, modeling career and it took you less than an hour to say "its all shit she say"?
what about this?
and this ? its all shit she says? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Sarah+Azhari%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=1970&as_yhi=

Kapanlagi is useless for notability (too sparse). The PDF is much of the same, using her name for a completely disconnected concept. They don't discuss Sarah in any appreciable depth and merely say her name; that's nowhere near enough to justify citing it for her article. I cannot speak to the book absent a physical copy of it due to Google's viewing limits, but what I did see barely even spoke about Azhari specifically. Google Scholar is worthless unless you're making an WP:NACADEMIC argument. Seriously, if this is the highest calibre of sources you can come up with, the article's pretty much doomed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 10:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
And for the record: It's the 21 Cineplex source specifically that I'm calling out as Shit She Says because the majority of the article is direct quotes attributed to her, to the point where the writer may as well have handed her the pen and gone off to lunch and filled in the remainder with one-line addenda. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 10:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

you do definetely are neglectful and have psychic abilities assuming that a book you can't read because of your google view is limited does not prove notability! first 95% of the indonesian google searches are based of not notability, you must have read ALL the articles, know you know so much of the writer's lunch schedule! wow!!!

I suggest you reread what I wrote about the book: I cannot speak to the book. The one page I read is not going to be representative of the book as a whole, but it barely even discussed Azhari and so may not have been the best page for you to point us to. And the comment about the writer going off to lunch is hyperbolic and not intended to be construed literally. I think the time has come to ask: What is your connexion to Azhari? —A little blue Bori v^_^v 19:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, please follow it up with an email to WP:VRT, Misplaced Pages's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.201.159.185 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are Amoeba69th, please log in. If you are not, do not put words in their mouth. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 21:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I do am not Amoeba. Is it your first time accusing someone of sockpuppetry, dear Jeske?

Whatever made you assume I was accusing Amoeba of sockpuppetry? —A little blue Bori v^_^v 23:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

kapanlagi.com/showbiz/film/indonesia/film-sarah-azhari-ini-jadi-sisa-kejayaan-horor-erotis-indonesia-043d1c.html
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sex_and_Sexualities_in_Contemporary_Indo/JWq2BQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sarah+azhari&pg=PT379&printsec=frontcover
https://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/123456789/535/1/101955-ZAENAL%20MUTTAQIEN-FAH.pdf -

Categories: