Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niharika Lyra Dutt (2nd nomination)

Niharika Lyra Dutt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Notability issue Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Television, Theatre, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I do not really see any notability issues here. The subject person has officially credited lead roles in TV series like Paatal Lok[1], Choona[2], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae[3], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher[4] and Sutliyan[5], which clearly fulfills the NACTOR#1. Besides, The Hindustan Times interview, as well as sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Yahoo! News that are currently cited in the article have also clearly demonstrated that the subject person has fulfilled GNG. It does not even require a BEFORE, as the information presented in the article is already sufficient to show that the subject person has fulfilled two notability guidelines. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. — 48 JCL 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR has clearly been fulfilled but not addressed. And yes, a single interview source itself does not establish notability. But if there are multiple interviews covering a breadth of different topics, this can count towards notability per WP:IV. I am not sure about Times of India, but even if it is excluded, there are still multiple interviews from The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, or Mid-Day[6], which have fulfilled this requirement imo. Still an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment— I agree wholeheartedly with Prince of Erebor. These are absolutely reliable sources. She is a main cast member in the television show mentioned in the article.
9t5 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal Lok or Choona, or in the streaming/web projects, so not an obviously notable career on the face of it. I am not sure whether any of the articles cited are really WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I provided show that she is credited as main cast, and they are from The Indian Express, The Hindu, and Variety. I do not believe these three sources have any concerns regarding their reliability. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.

9t5 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I've done a source assessment. — 48 JCL 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep- I ~~disagree~~ strongly disagree with 48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is ~~plainly~~ outrageously untrue.

9t5 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times.
[1] -- From WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability.
[2] -- From WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability.
[3] -- Another interview.
[4] -- IMDb, not reliable. Per WP:IMDb
[5] -- Another interview.
[6] -- Another interview.
[7] -- Passing mention.
[8] -- Passing mention. — 48 JCL 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?

9t5 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL Then tag the article with {{verify}}? This is a ridiculous use of AfD. 9t5 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.

I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than 48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with 48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project. 9t5 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9t5 and Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. — 48 JCL 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]