Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan Aryan

Shabana Shajahan Aryan

[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)

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead roles In notable series have her clearly meet WP:NACTOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur with Mushy Yank. At least two co-leading roles in the television series Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Fulfills NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Actress had been in 2 Tamil language TV shows where she played lead roles but the sources on the page are focused on her personal marital life than her career. Source 1 is about her dress outfits. Source 2 is on her wedding anniversary. Source 3 is on her marriage trouble. Source 4 is on her childhood picture. Source 5 is passing mention on likes dislikes. Source 6 is on show going off-air. Source 7, 8 and 9 are on her marriage troubles. There is not a single source with indepth coverage on her career. I did not find any reliable secondary independent source that has indepth coverage on her career as an actress and the reason could be that her career is not yet worthy of notice to deserve attention or to be recorded but voting to draftify if anyone can find sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could editors arguing to Keep offer a response to this source review? How would you feel about draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There's a fair amount of (albeit tabloid-esque coverage) in news outlets, indicating some sort of notability. For example, this Times of India article goes in-depth about how she celebrated her birthday. Non-notable people wouldn't get anywhere close to that level of coverage. There's also a whole bunch of stuff about her wedding ([1][2][3][4]). Combined with meeting WP:NACTOR I think notability is met and there should be enough to write an article. C F A 💬 02:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Birthday celebration, giving thanks on instagram and the kind of gift received by spouse, these are not the kind of coverage needed to satisfy notability. The page has no source with indepth coverage on her career. The page needs to be re-written and sourced with reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not necessarily. It doesn't really matter what the coverage is about, as long as it is significant and about the subject. In this case, I believe WP:BASIC is barely met, and she appears to meet the applicable subject-specific notability guideline (WP:NACTOR). The article is currently a fairly well-written start-class article and is cited to reliable, independent sources. I don't see any issues with the article. What is the point of deleting/draftifying this? C F A 💬 15:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage has to be notable to warrant a page on the subject and coverage like birthday and divorce issues, that are personal life, are not only the kind of coverage needed for a WP:NACTOR. There needs to be significant coverage on her career to be considered a notable actor. This is why I was opting for Draftify so that creator or other editor can find indepth coverage in secondary reliable independent sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR is a subject-specific notability guideline that doesn't require the person meet the general notability guideline as well (in my opinion they do, but that's not relevant). As long as they meet any one of the criteria outlined (and it can be verified), they are presumed notable. Now, if they meet a SNG and there isn't enough coverage to write an article, there's a better argument for deletion. In this case, however, an article has been written and appears to be appropriately sourced, so deleting it is kind of pointless. Draftifying is useful for someone who could become notable in the near future but isn't at the moment. As I mentioned, the article has already been written and the subject is notable, so there is no reason to draftify. When more in-depth sources about her career are published, they can just be added to the article in mainspace. C F A 💬 16:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to relist question: I cannot see why this should be moved to draft it she meets WP:NACTOR with 2 verifiable lead roles in notable productions. If other users want to remove content and sources about her private life, they can. If you remove "Aryan" from your search, you find some sources focusing more on her work and confirming her roles.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its the indepth coverage on her career that is missing. The subject's career has not (imo) received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability because her roles did not gain significant independent coverage or recognition. Too early still? I did google search for reliable secondary independent source on her career by her name, Shabana Shajahan, but was not able to find any in first two pages. If you find any, can you list them here please? RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage that allows verification of her roles, which is what the SNG requires, is not great but includes https://www.filmibeat.com/tamil/2024/shabana-bids-farewell-to-mr-manaivi-vaanathai-pola-star-debjani-modak-takes-the-reins-392475.html ;

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/tamil/pavan-and-shabana-starrermr-manaivi-to-go-off-air-soon/articleshow/106371726.cms ; https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/tamil/etimes-tvs-poll-results-netizens-select-mr-manaivi-as-their-favourite-daily-soap-take-a-look-at-the-other-tv-shows-on-the-list/articleshow/99777465.cms ; https://nettv4u.com/celebrity/tamil/tv-actress/shabana-shajahan/list-of-serial-and-shows -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems you had already received a reply about that by CFA. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filmibeat and Nett4u are unreliable sources and the ones from Times Of India are the same sources on the page that I mentioned earlier in my vote that there is no indepth coverage on her career in those sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said, you have already received a reply about that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Times of India is generally not considered a notability-establishing source because it is known to accept coverage for pay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how many times do you want me to repeat what has been said in the course of this discussion? WP:NACTOR is the applicable guideline and the said sources, including TOI, can be used to verify her roles. I'm leaving it at that.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently closed an RfC on TOI and updated the RSPS entry. It now states the following:
Additional considerations apply to articles published in The Times of India (TOI) after 1950. TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. Editors should ensure that they do not use paid advertorials—which were first published in TOI in 1950 at the earliest—to verify information or establish notability. Paid advertorials may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment. Editors should also be aware that TOI may have published at least one AI-generated article.
voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and it also says and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"also says"? Please. It is written in my note. There's no need to repeat and repeat it, bold or not, as if I was trying to ignore it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes it more clear to state what is exactly said that isn't clear or contradicts from what you said. You have made your point and I agree to disagree on the sources you provided. Is there any other source you can find with indepth coverage on her career? If not, we do not need to discuss further and let closer analyze. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeated many times, there does not need to be in-depth coverage of her career. She verifiably meets a subject-specific notability guideline, WP:NACTOR, and is therefore notable. End of story. C F A 💬 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:SNG, there is no adequate sourcing and significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We dont't have to repeat each other when there is just disagreements. Lets have others weigh in. RangersRus (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be significant coverage, as long as the claim is verified. C F A 💬 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NACTOR with roles in Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW, additional criteria clearly mentions that 'People are likely to be notable' not necessarily. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per RangersRus's source analysis. Also SALT this page to prevent it from being published before it's been reviewed. Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. It states: "Such a person may be considered notable" if it meets either of the criteria, not that the person is notable. We need sources that provide significant coverage of the subject so that we can write an encyclopedic article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. Maybe. Unless you did not understand what some of us did say or why they !voted with a reference to the applicable guideline. An actor meeting WP:NACTOR is presumed notable; not necessarily notable but certainly not proven non-notable. Sources allowing to verify the roles are necessary. You have them. And coverage about her private life was not said to be non-significant, it was said not be significantly about her career....it's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. Notability is a spectrum, and, indeed, when you have an actor with two lead roles in notable productions, NACTOR is quite clearly satisfied and their notability is very very highly likely, which this discussion allows to agree (or not) upon. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed notable and Likely notable have very different meanings. 'Presumed' is a more stronger word for an occurance to happen, while 'likely' is a weaker word in comparison. The additional criteria mention 'Likely' and not 'Presumed'.

It's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. - The standards of Indian media regarding the notability of a person are quite poor, which is why people/companies often don't stop at just having their name in the news but instead aim to get their own article on Wikipedia.

I don't believe anyone who has argued above has mentioned that the subject doesn't meet NACTOR criteria, rather they are asking for significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per User:RangersRus's source analysis. I likewise concur with User:voorts's suggestion salting this mainspace until an approved draft may be completed. I find myself sympathetic to User:Jeraxmoira's assertion regarding standards of media. Entertainment and sports-based churnalism sometimes makes notability discussions of BLPs complicated. Asserting the relative importance of roles without proper citation in RS is pure synthesis. Wikipedia is not People (magazine) or the cultural equivalent elsewhere. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]