- Gouri Kishan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe that undue weight was placed on the poor state of the article by the closing administrator and one of the "delete" voters. I feel that more time should have been allowed to reach a consensus regarding WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closer In general it's unneccessary to run the DRV process for a single sentence article. If you think there should be an article, and have some sources, it is usually much easier to write up a brief article that establishes notability than it is to gather community support. An article that just says that an actress appeared in some movies, wihout any information about whether those roles were significant, is unlikely to be useful to a reader. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. The AfD failed to identify any WP:DEL-REASON. Sure, it's a stub (maybe even a sub-stub) but it's got two plausible looking sources, and a bunch more plausible looking sources were identified in the AfD. The two people who commented after the sources were presented gave vague reasons for deletion without making any effort to evaluate the sources. Userfying or draftifying would be reasonable alternatives in lieu of relisting. Or, as suggested in the AfD close, just go ahead and re-create the article in mainspace, taking care to include good sources which demonstrate that WP:NACTOR is satisfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per RoySmith, the fact that the article is very short isn't much of a deletion reason at all. Hut 8.5 19:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't relist it, it's much quicker and much less work to create it again from scratch. Pop a note on the talk page pointing to this discussion. That should be sufficient to inoculate it against G4.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- TempUndelete, please. Glades12 (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The amount of discussion far exceeds the content of the deleted article. A young actress, very recent credits, is not yet demonstrated to meet WP:NACTOR, this is an obvious WP:TOOSOON. Draftify or Userfy on request, discourage bold recreation for at least six months unless a clear WP:THREE case is made, which would overcome the reason for deletion. Disagree with Roy Smith that the AfD failed to identify any WP:DEL#REASON. The AfD nomination was good. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I would have said to Delete if I had taken part, and the community and the closer acted reasonably. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- relist I'm not thrilled with the discussion and don't think it reached an actionable consensus. Hobit (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As the editor who applied for this review, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to contribute to this discussion (this is my first review), but I would like to make a couple of points about comments left here by the editors who are voting to "endorse", SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon. In response to the comment, "The amount of discussion far exceeds the content of the deleted article," I don't believe that that is at all relevant; indeed, the fact that such emphasis was placed on the length of the article in the AfD is one of the reasons I applied for this review. In response to the comment, "I would have said to Delete if I had taken part..." I don't think that is relevant either, because the review, as I understand it, is to determine whether the closing administrator's decision was reasonable and correct based on that which did occur in the AfD, not that which might have occurred. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You can get more time by going through WP:REFUND and WP:AfC. If you are right, if without the distraction of the "poor state", you can add notability-attesting sources, then AfC will accept the draft and move it back to mainspace.
- In the AfD, you listed seven sources.
- 1. https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2019/aug/08/sunny-wayne-gouri-kishan-film-moves-into-post-production-2015591.html – New Indian Express.
- It doesn't actually say anything about the subject.
- 2. https://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2019/nov/10/gouri-kishan-confirms-being-a-part-of-vijay-lokesh-kanagaraj-s-next-thalapathy-64-15407.html –Cinema Express.
- Same as #1. Repeats the same fact, she will be in a film, but says nothing significant about her. It calls her "young", which is not enough. The article then goes on to interview her, which is not independent.
- 3. https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/review/2020/feb/08/jaanu-review-an-intimate-love-story-that-largely-works---2100475.html – New Indian Express, brief praise in a film review.
- It calls her a "measured performer". Not even a full sentence about the subject.
- 4. https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2018/dec/13/anugraheethan-antony-is-a-universal-story-1910675.html – New Indian Express
- The only comment about her is "got noticed for her performance in the recent Tamil hit 96 starring" [someone else]. Not direct coverage of any depth.
- 5. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/021018/96-movie-review-vijay-sethupathi-trisha-tamil-prem-kumar-best-adhithya.html – Deccan Chronicle, praise in a film review.
- It mentions that she plays the character, but says nothing about her.
- 6. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movie-reviews/96/movie-review/66032687.cms – Times of India, brief praise in a film review
- "The actors who play the younger Ram and Janu — Adithya Bhaskar and Gouri Kishan — are equally good."
- That's it. Not enough.
- 7 .https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/from-june-to-vikrams-cobra-20-year-old-sarjano-khalids-dream-start-to-his-film-career/article30942188.ece – The Hindu, discussed in relation to another actor.
- "Discuss"?!? She put her friend on to the project. That's a fact, not a discussion. No significant comment on the subject.
- Your seven sources were appropriately ignored by the other participants, all too weak, and too many. Endorse the AfD, it properly made the right decision. WP:TOOSOON. Wait for direct and significant commentary on the subject before trying again. To make your case, follow the advice at WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe, thank you for your response. I have no intention of creating the article from scratch. Quite simply, I am challenging the claim that a consensus was reached, with particular reference to the emphasis placed on the state of the article, which is not relevant. As regards your analysis of the sources I provided, that should have occurred in the AfD. You claim that the sources were dismissed by the other voters, yet you have no way of knowing that—in fact, neither of the other voters commented on sources (or the subject’s acting roles) at all. You are inferring, by saying that the sources were "appropriately ignored", that the other two voters went through the sources, came to the conclusion that they were not satisfactory, and rather than simply say that the sources were not satisfactory, decided instead to remain quiet. I do not think that that is a tenable inference to draw.
- In response to your individual comments vis-à-vis the sources, the first source (entitled "Sunny Wayne-Gouri Kishan film moves into post-production"), contrary to what you claim, does actually say something about the subject: "96-fame Gouri Kishan is playing the female lead. It is her second Malayalam film after the newly released Margam Kali."
- The second source (entitled "Gouri Kishan begins shooting for Thalapathy 64") is a short article dedicated to the subject. And she is not interviewed, as you claim; an online quote is provided. This is not an interview-style article.
- The third source states: "It helps that the younger selves of Jaanu and Ram are played by measured performers (Sai Kiran Kumar and Gouri Kishan)." I described that as "brief praise", which I believe is accurate.
- In regard to the fourth source, you said: “The only comment about her is "got noticed for her performance in the recent Tamil hit 96 starring" [someone else].” But the snippet of quote you provide fails to convey context. The full quote reads: “The female lead is played by Gouri Kishan, who got noticed for her performance in the recent Tamil hit 96 starring Vijay Sethupathi and Trisha. Gouri played the younger version of Trisha’s character in the film.” This article is not about the film, 96, which, as you say, stars “someone else”, but is about another film in which the subject is the female lead.
- With regard to the fifth source, contrary to your claim that the article “mentions that she plays the character, but says nothing about her”, she does receive praise, as I correctly noted: “The two youngsters, Adhitya, as younger Vijay Sethupathi, and Gauri, as younger Trisha, are aptly cast and they have performed exceptionally well.”
- With regard to the sixth source, your quote is accurate.
- With regard to the seventh source, yes, the subject is discussed by another actor. This is more frivolous, though, and I wouldn't rely on it too heavily for the purposes of WP:GNG.
- I do not agree with your analysis of the sources; I believe that their cumulative effect is enough to meet WP:GNG—but, I reiterate that this debate over the sources should have taken place in the AfD discussion, not here. Your implication that the other delete voters perused the sources and silently rejected them is unsubstantiated. I believe more time should have been allowed for other editors to weigh in on the issues surrounding WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, which did not occur. A two-to-one split—especially where neither of the “delete” voters provided any policy reasoning to support their vote—is not a clear consensus. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to debate the sources, I ask you to nominate no more than three. If the three best are not enough, the cumulative effect of many worse sources will not be enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the remedy here seems to be very simple: draftify/improve the article. I agree with RoySmith that no proper rationale for deletion was here, and WP:G11 clearly does not apply, but it's hard to argue for restoring the article in the state that it's in given it's not really all that useful in its current state and there's a clear remedy here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist – I cannot endorse a closing statement that is based on the state of the article rather than the state of sourcing. Probably is the right outcome based on the sources in the article and in the AFD (none of which are in-depth enough or independent enough to satisfy GNG in my opinion), but the rationale is contra-global-consensus. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
