Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lahari Shari

< 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. Daniel (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lahari Shari

edit

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

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

Before search couldn't provide impressive references. The actress worked on supporting roles in multiple films. Fails WP:NACTOR which needs significant roles in multiple films. May be WP:TOOSOON. We can not use WP:GNG as well. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Mamushir. Thank you for review. I think the subject plays important role in those movies, although she may not be the lead actor. I have also checked other references that show the subject's profile is in strong position to stay on Wikipedia. I have also mentioned the reliable sources that confirm this. I am trying to add some more articles of people who have contributed to different fields, I request you to check subject's notability on Facebook [1] and on Instagram [2] Mapd43 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion
Mamushir, please help me to get this article approved with your guidance so that I can do some more contribution to Wikipedia Mapd43 (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment (came to categorize) -- Unable to evaluate what is an important role due to lack of familiarity. But I somewhat disagree as to whether the actor has to lead in those films. Yes, I see the policy. Ask yourself however whether with those criteria Albert Hitchcock would be notable as an actor. The article is a bit undue and should be edited for NOTRESUME. However that is an impressive list of films, all of which have their own articles. The article requires limited editing and the subject probably will have many film roles eventually. That said, I have no connection to the subject, but I say why not just prune it a bit. I worry that sometimes editors think that if something was important, they would have heard of it. Elinruby (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Elinruby, Thank you so much for your comment and guidance. Your comments makes me understand as to why Mamushir nominated this article for deletion. It is a good idea to follow the guidelines and to prune it a bit as you guided. As Mamushir said, this subject fails WP:NACTOR, removing information that describes this subject as an actress. Really thankful to you and Mamushir for helping to make Wikipedia as reliable source of information and also for helping new editors like us who want to do more contribution in near future Mapd43 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ Mamushir, as per your feedback and input, I have removed the information that was resulting this subject to fail for WP:NACTOR I hope now this article does not violate Wikipedia policy and also delivers proper information about the subject. I request you to withdraw your nomination for page deletion, thanks in advance. Mapd43 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately in Wikipedia, we have strict policy for WP:BLP. Narrowing down the discussion to WP:NACTOR, the subject is not at all passing. It is failing WP:GNG as well. Right now, there are 10 references out of 13 references in the article which are from youtube. Mapd43, please see WP:RS and WP:GNG. How much popular a person is in facebook or instagram has no connection with how notability is evaluated in Wikipedia. A very popular person who is notable must satisfy WP:N. These being elaborated, the subject lacks enough notability for a separate article. This may be WP:TOOSOON. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ Mamushir, at this moment the article has no such information where WP:NACTOR is applicable. I completely disagree with you that the subject is not popular. I have done in-dept research and cited reliable sources of news channel websites that mention about the subject with proof. If these reliable websites have released articles mentioning the subject, it is understood that the subject holds strong notability into the Telugu Television world. Instead of focusing on why this article should not stay on Wikipedia, as genuine editors, we must focus on why this article should stay on Wikipedia. The YouTube videos that are given in reference, are uploaded on authentic and official YouTube channels of those news channels which gives an extra layer of authenticity to the sources presented. Hence, in my opinion, this article is good to go and should be approved Mapd43 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I request other editors also to get involved in this discussion and contribute to get this article approved. I have seen many other profiles on Wikipedia with just 2-3 citations, but those profiles are still approved by Wikipedia, then there is no question about the subject profile to get deleted after adding so many trustworthy citations and references. In addition to this, now we can also see the google knowledge panel displaying subject's profile and information. Please refer the screenshot that is attached. I request to approve this article. Mapd43 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was described in the article as an actress initially, which she does not meet per WP:NACTOR. Now, if she is tried to be presented as a 'TV Anchor' or similar then also we can not get the subject pass through since it basically fails WP:SIGCOV moreover majority of sources are either non RS, or non reputed or have trivial mention about the subject. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 08:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I thought this subject's profile is good to go as television presenter and actress, but later with your comment and inputs, I got to know that this subject may not be eligible for actor profile as she fails WP:NACTOR. But she definitely has a strong profile as television presenter which I have noticed in my research and thus, I have included all relevant sources and citations. I totally disagree with your comment that the sources are non RS or non reputed. The subject has got coverage on highly popular and authentic as well as official media websites like Wirally.com [3] , ETV.co.in [4] etc. I have seen many articles that have no strong reliable source, still they are approved and active on Wikipedia, for example check article page of Gigi Hozimah [5] If such articles can stay on Wikipedia, then the subject's Article must stay on Wikipedia as we have added strong citations and references of official websites. Mapd43 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mapd43, Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand what kind of arguments are acceptable in a AfD discussion. As far as Gigi Hozimah, she is one among the handful of female filmmakers of Saudi Arabia, being a female filmmaker in a country like saudi arabia is surely something notable enough to be included in Wikipedia to which several people have agreed. For more you should read the edit history and the talk page. Furthermore the page underwent a speedy test which was declined just as it should have happened. Coming back to Lahari Shari, she does not qualify as a notable person per WP:SIGCOV. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/lahariactress/
  2. ^ https://www.instagram.com/lahari_shari/
  3. ^ https://wirally.com/people-who-became-popular-on-social-media-overnight/
  4. ^ http://www.etv.co.in/show_episodes/episode_home?epid=55373&pageNo=6
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigi_Hozimah
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've collapsed the extended discussion between the nominator and creator above in the hope that it will encourage other editors to comment. @Mamushir and Mapd43: Please take a quick look at WP:AFDFORMAT and try to keep your comments brief.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: TV personalities from small markets are rarely notable. Most people in the world have jobs of some sort, and just because someone's job happens to include doing on-camera work and interviewing celebrities doesn't mean that they, themselves, are notable. Primary school children have access to quality phone cameras these days, and could produce entertainment content just as well as anybody else. No indication that this is a bona-fide journalist of any sort. Can't find anything to satisfy WP:BEFORE, so I don't think they meet the WP:GNG as of yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I request other editors and admins to contribute to this discussion and also to go through the references and cites that are attached to the article. I believe the subject seems to be a well known media personality and has a good popularity among fans, not only this, I have also noticed that some reputed media websites have published articles about the subject. I think this article can stay. Mapd43 (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting a third time. This discussion needs more input to reach a definitive conclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Subject seems to be notable but has less sources mentioned. Going deeper into research, found a latest article about the subject on one of the most popular media sites in India, Mid Day. Apart from the television news career, the subject seems to earn adequate fame and achievements for being chosen in an upcoming Telugu film into a lead role. I found this source: [1]
Based on the references given and new sources found, the subject seems to be good to stay on Wikipedia Syoz (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC) — Syoz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. struck sock vote. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided says nothing about Lahari Shari. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2021 (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/Lahari_Shari&oldid=1010212563"