Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharly Modak: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:02, 9 October 2022

Sharly Modak

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

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

Only a few roles in some daily soaps. After carefully checking the references, all are passing mentions and routine coverages only. The creator removed the tag[1] without any improvements to the article despite suggestions to go through the AfC process. Haueirlan (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meeting WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as the Subject has done 3 television series and she was the lead actress of those television series, also the subject has significant coverages from multiple sources. Apart from this the subject has been reviewed 2 month ago by @North8000:, who is an experienced editor over more than 10 years so I don't think that in this 2 month subject is not meeting notablity criteria. Samir Bishal (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean reviewed pages cannot go through AfD? Anyway, lets see the references:

1st source[2] talks about the show with passing mention of its roles.
2nd source[3] is a routine coverage for a new source.
3rd source[4] again a routine coverage about a new soap opera rather than the subject.
4th source[5] is not opening for me.
5th source[6] is an interview piece.
6th source[7] another routine coverage on show's end.
7th source[8] is another interview piece featuring her photos.

8th source[9] about participating her along with a several other actress to a reality show.

Clearly fails SIGCOV and GNG. Acting merely in 3 local television shows doesn't establish notability as per WP:NACTOR and this is why I suggested you to go through the AfC process[10] instead of Adminshopping[11]. Haueirlan (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did adminshopping because there are rules if any subject is on wikipedia for more than 90 days then it can't go to the draft space, only an admin and editors who are experienced can send the subject to draft-space. By the experience editor doesn't mean how many years his/her account age is, experience editor mean who is editing regularly and working on this kind of issue. Admin Liz wrote the same thing on your talk page. Please read what admin Liz wrote on your talk page. As you are not an experienced editor you can only send it for speedy deletion and afd, but you send the subject direct to draft-space. And reviewed page can go through afd, which i already maintained you on your talk page that you can go through afd insted of draftify because the subject is more than 90 days old. By the way let other contributor to write about this afd and till then let's wait for their perspective also. Thank you Samir Bishal (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In no way you should do adminshopping. If you feel I or any other editor has done something wrong then you should ask or discuss with me or them first, on article's talk page or on their talk page. This is how this community works. Liz response has nothing to do with this AfD so if you really think the subject is notable then establish it with proper sources. Best, Haueirlan (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Actress does not pass WP:ACTOR. Sources do not completely support WP:BIO with only one (maybe two) passing WP:GNG. See table for analysis of sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sharly has played 3 television serial and there she played the lead role and all those roles are significant and notable. As Chirodini Ami Je Tomar serial has more that 200 episodes, Bhaggolokkhi has more than 200 episodes and Lokkhi Kakima Superstar has more than 150 episode and Sharly has played lead role in those tv serial. Subject is passing WP:NACTOR clearly. Samir Bishal (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was pinged because I was the NPP reviewer. I made a judgement call in the limited time available. A review here would do a more thorough job than I did and I would respect any outcome. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Indian Express Bangla	Article appears to be an independent review of the show	WP:INDIANEXP	~ Article is about the show not the actress	~ Partial
Times of India	Short article about an upcoming production	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	Article is about the show not the actress	✘ No
Times of India	Short article about an upcoming production	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	~ Article is about the show but gives a couple paragraphs on the actresses	~ Partial
TV9 Bangla	Appears to be a reproduction from a news agency	Willing to assume that this is a local TV station which is part of a larger organization	~ Article is about the show not the actress	? Unknown
Sangbad Online	Unable to access website	Unable to access website	Unable to access website	? Unknown
Anandabazar	Interview appears to be independent of any production company influence	Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#Is_the_Anandabazar_Patrika_WP:RS	Transcript of an interview with material about their life and recent events. Not a strong source.	✔ Yes
Times of India	WP:TOI	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	Article is about the show	✘ No
Times of India	WP:TOI	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	Top ten list	✘ No
Times of India	WP:TOI	For none entertainment news this source is biased towards India	~ Actress appeared as a contestant on a TV show.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on source table above. I don't find much of anything for other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source table and my own searches have been unable to uncover anything better. W 42 17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source table and above voters. Elbatli (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 *'''Delete''' based on source table above. I don't find much of anything for other sources. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 11:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per the source table and my own searches have been unable to uncover anything better. [[User:Winner 42|<span style="color:orange">'''W'''</span>]][[User talk: Winner 42|'''42''']]  17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per source table and above voters. [[User:Elbatli|Elbatli]] ([[User talk:Elbatli|talk]]) 10:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)