Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aruba Mirza

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Valid arguments on both sides, but consensus failing to materialize after over three weeks. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Mirza

[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are a mixture of not mentioning Mirza, passing mentions and interviews 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.
  2. ^ "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.
  • Draftify: For the time being until more reliable sources are added. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article includes sufficient references to meet GNG. Notable sources, such as The News (Ruling the Charts), ARY News (Papa Ki Pari, Kahani Kahan Se Shuru Hui), The News (Rang Mahal Final Episode), and The Express Tribune, provides substantial coverage of the subject's career, media appearances, TV roles, and win in a popular show. Additionally, other brief mentions in various sources contribute to satisfying the WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR talk 15:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTOR. Subject has done multiple significant roles in notable Tv shows.

Zuck28 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable name in drama industry and passes notability criteria. Referencing is enough to establish that, Urdu news items are also from mainstream Urdu media. Muneebll (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the request, no coverage has been presented that show significant coverage. I see keep votes stating "clearly" notable or making the claim of being a "notable name" or having significant roles but not supported by references required by WP:NACTOR. Regardless of roles, there needs to be significant coverage to show it. Notability is not inherent. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NACTOR is met. Based on the provided references, each offers moderate coverage, and the combined use of multiple independent sources can effectively establish notability. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel otherwise which is why I say significant coverage has not been presented. Of the five presented as evidence in this AfD (note it is four as one is a duplicate), all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of this which I would question as reliable based on no listed editorial guidelines and advertising which includes "article publishing." I am open to review anything else someone wants to provide. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. While there are numerous sources available online covering her career, TV appearances, and roles, individually, they may not meet the threshold for significant coverage. However, when considered collectively, they do. As for your concern about paid content, none of the sources are affiliated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as they all come from Pakistani media, not Indian outlets (not saying that your indications are wrong or right). — MimsMENTOR talk 06:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is sometimes confusion about the name NEWSORGINDIA (which I think needs to be changed by the way), but there are several editors who agree it applies to media in that region as a whole, not just the country. Regardless, we can call it churnalism which is essentially the same thing. Reprinted press releases, paid media, etc. It doesn't have to be paid to fall under that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Churnalism" can be addressed separately if you want to mention it in that context, and that's fine. However, NEWSORGINDIA still applies as a guideline for Indian media, even if editors agree it's intended for the broader subcontinental region (which I believe is what you were referring to). That said, I don’t see a valid reason to delete this article under WP:NEXIST. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I can no longer discuss as it is going in circles. Let me be clear......I agree with you on NEXIST. The problem is that I have searched for suitable sources and they do not exist. The ones presented by keep votes are not reliable or not significant. We don't just assume sources must exists if we have searched for and been unable to locate them. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Even if WP:GNG is not met, that doesn't matter as the sources prove an WP:SNG is met. SNGs are a perfectly valid pathway to establishing notability under policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. WP:ANYBIO says people are presumed notable when there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, but that people are only likely to be notable if they meet the following standards, of which NACTOR is one. That is, NACTOR creates a refutable likelihood of notability. The guideline specifically says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. What really matters is the secondary sources from which the page can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has a clear majority but these aren't very strong arguments. Keep folks: what sources do you find the most convincing? If there are strong sources in Urdu, can we see them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep: Again, deletion is not cleanup; subject passes C1 WP:Anybio per the award and WP:Nactor. Kaizenify (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, per the relist comments, and per CNMall41, the sourcing is just not there. ANYBIO C1 does not apply - this is not a significant award. NACTOR criterion 1 looks stronger, but meeting NACTOR criterion 1 does not guarantee the subject should be included, per the SNG guidelines themselves. As no one has been able to provide suitable sourcing from which a page could be written, there is no reason to keep this page. I would be happy with a redirect if anyone can suggest something suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and CNMall41. Fails to clear notability and GNG too. Keep !votes aren't convincing enough and the sources provided do not make it past SIGCOV and GNG threshold. — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Based upon the multiple significant roles that this individual has played in various television series (such as Saba in Mera Haq; Sehrish in Babul Ka Angna; and Hajra in Rang Mahal, which was mentioned by the BBC) it looks like this individual passes WP:NACTOR#1 (i.e. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions). WP:N notes that a subject is presumed to merit an article when It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), provided that the article is not excluded under WP:NOT. "Or" does not mean "and"; meeting a subject-specific notability guideline is sufficient to be considered notable.
    Those who support deletion have argued that this individual does not meet the WP:GNG. While this is not necessary, as explained above, it is also plain wrong to insist that she does not meet it. There is plenty of coverage of this individual under her Urdu name (عروبہ مرزا) that is available online from a quick search. This includes multiple news organizations covering the breaking off of her engagement (Dawn, Geo), some coverage of her childhood (Ary News), and some coverage of her decision to enter the entertainment industry (Ary News).
    This individual would be notable alone based upon her passing WP:NACTOR. But that she also passes WP:GNG makes it crystal clear that we should keep this article.
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing like responding on the last day of the last relist! Could you cite a couple of the sources you say meet GNG please? I'd like to review those as if we have actual sources (thus far lacking throughout the whole discussion) I would certainly revise my !vote. Note to closer please could close be delayed long enough to allow this review. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2024 (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/Aruba_Mirza&oldid=1260204581"