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

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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Lyra Dutt

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]

Delete ~~Weak Keep~~ - (switch to weak keep: after having reevaluated 48JCL‘s arguments) // (switch to delete: I stand by my views on policy & notability, but this specific article is progressively unearthing problems. Extremely irked by the sock puppet attempt, and that paired with Ssilvers’s comments have me feeling uncomfortable with leaving a keep on this AfD. So I am switching to Delete) — I (still) 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 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It not be deleted. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

You have a bizarre contribution history. Typical of a sock puppet. WP:SOCK 9t5 (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicontriiiiibute —- to the closing editor, this account is likely best kept unconsidered. The user has a very short and very opinionated history of solely AfD discussions. 🂡🂡9t5 05:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to say "Delete" for now, per WP:NOTYET and because of the mischaracterization of the roles this person has played as "3 main roles". They are supporting roles, but not within the first half dozen roles listed in the cast lists. It is very suspicious that this person has not received substantial press other than interviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply original research and IDONTLIKEIT to determine an actor's role by subjective assessment. Based on both the official billings and the sources, the subject person was listed among the main cast of Choona ([7][8][9][10]) and Paatal Lok ([11][12][13][14]), as well as part of the ensemble cast with a credit of "Also Featuring" in Call Me Bae ([15][16][17]). Large productions can have a large main cast. For instance, a season of The Boys can have a total of 16 actors in main roles, while A Murder at the End of the World has a total of 13 actors in main roles. The main roles are officially credited, and their position in the billing does not matter at all. A main role will not be diminished to a recurring or supporting role simply because the actor is not credited front enough.

Her role in Sutliyan was also referred as "principal cast" by Scroll.in,[18] and mentioned in multiple reviews,[19][20] which I do not think this is what a minor and non-notable role would be like. With at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, I still do not see how the subject person fails NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being persuasive, because you are just throwing in a lot of refs that merely list the cast, and because you are being emotional. Instead, if you cite a review or other independent article (not an interview of someone connected to the production) for each role that *states* why it is one of the most important roles in the work, or that *describes* the role's its importance to the plot arc, I will review them and see if they persuade me. Above you mention Sutliyan, but this is not even mentioned in the article. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, add all the relevant information and cites to the article that you want to discuss, instead of WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Then you can make a more persuasive point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, why would I be emotional? I always make lengthy comments on AFD, and I normally do not expand an article with the sources and information I present before the article is kept, or else that would just be a waste of my time. If you are complaining about TLDR, here is a shortened version:

The subject person's main roles are officially credited in the billings and supported by numerous sources. Three sources per WP:THREE, and the fourth sources are related to the billings, like the official website of Netflix or credits listed at Screen Rant, so I believe this is the perfect amount of evidence I should provide. But for the sake of discussion, I would simply quote all the first sources:

For Choona, Created by Pushpendra Nath, the main cast includes: Jimmy Shergill as Avinash Shukla, Minister of Urban Development [...] Gyanendra Tripathi as Baankey and Niharika Lyra Dutt as Jhumpa, among others.

For Pataal Lok, Amazon Prime Video recently dropped the Anushka Sharma-bankrolled series, Paatal Lok, which stars Jaideep Ahlawat, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Neeraj Kabi and Gul Panag in the leading roles.

For Call Me Bae, The eight-part series, also featuring Vir Das, Gurfateh Pirzada, Varun Sood, Vihaan Samat, Muskkaan Jaferi, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Lisa Mishra, and Mini Mathur, will premiere on September 6.

For Sutliyan, The principal cast, which includes Niharika Lyra Dutt as the object of Raman’s affection, is uniformly compelling.

There is nothing for me to describe or persuade, as a credited main role would not be diminished simply because of subjective disagreements. If someone comment on why they consider it is main or it is supporting, this is called original research. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Perhaps I made too many comments and my argument has been messy to follow. So for the benefit of reviewing, I will make a summary: I think the subject person passes both NACTOR and GNG. For NACTOR, she has at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, supported by billings and sources, which is a clear fulfillment of NACTOR#1. For GNG, she has a certain extent of secondary source coverage, such as from Times of India[21] or Tellychakkar [22][23], albeit not the best sources. However, this can be compensated with numerous interviews from reputable media outlets per WP:IV, including The Hindustan Times[24], Indian Express[25], Mid-Day[26], Yahoo! News[27], Sakshi[28], etc. Therefore, by combining both primary and secondary sources covering the subject person, it clearly demonstrates enough notability to pass GNG. Fulfilling two notability guidelines is a strong keep to me, and I have reservations about the opposing !votes in this discussion, as they do not seem to be based on P&G. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources i find are interviews [29]and [30]. Source 2 is also an interview in prose form. Rest of the sourcing in the article is about other projects, not about this person. We don't have articles about her that aren't primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 25 July 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.