Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Lillu (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. BusterD (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Lillu[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)

Per the previous nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Lillu, BLP fails WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Film, India, and Kerala. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as when I !voted on the 19th of January, no sourcing, not enough to build an article with found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 1st Afd was closed...today. That's what I call a speedy renomination...-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:53, 26 January 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.. And I was convinced by keep !votes at last Afd, so I'm going to say keep-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source is reliable, the article is an interview that lacks sufficient analysis/commentary to be considered a secondary source. (I believe it was discussed in-depth in the previous AfD.) Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in the previous afd you discarded the TOI as non-reliable not as non-secondary. Also, it will probably be difficult not to repeat things that were said then since it was closed as no-consensus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe reliability comes first. There was no need to determine if it was a primary/secondary source(during the previous AfD) when I deemed it unreliable per WP:TOI. Also, the mentioned article is not a film review but an interview. Despite being generally unreliable per WP:TOI, if you feel it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and consider it reliable in this case, it still does not count towards GNG due to being an interview with not enough commentary/ analysis. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but this not my personal opinion: it seems to be the (no) consensus at Perennial Sources (WP:TOI) and among members of Indian task force. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just one thing: The full quote of the WP:TOI you are citing goes "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." And the source is "yellow" (that is, just under reliable....). (That's very very far from being "generally unreliable" and the Indian task force clarifies why.) Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and I want to clarify that interviews with not enough commentary or analysis are not considered secondary sources. Therefore, they do not contribute towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of courtesy pinging other participants to ~~today's~~ previous Afd @The Wordsmith:@Liz, Daniel, Seraphimblade, Rublamb, and Mischellemougly:.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough reliable sources to meet notability. Note that interviews can count toward notability where there are several interviews. Rublamb (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb: Can you please mention here the specific Wikipedia guideline or policy(not essay) that states interviews can contribute to notability, particularly when there are multiple interviews? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. From WP:INTERVIEWS: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." Rublamb (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Daniel (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/a-filmy-dream/article29474707.ece	Is an interview but with enough analysis/commentary.			✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20230911014500/https://www.deshabhimani.com/women/rosemary/1116116	Article is an interview with not enough analysis/commentary.			✘ No
https://malayalam.samayam.com/malayalam-cinema/celebrity-news/designer-rosemary-lillu-opens-up-about-her-line-art-tribute-to-mohanlals-romantic-movies/articleshow/77263370.cms?story=11	Article is an interview with not enough analysis/commentary.			✘ No
https://www.vanitha.in/celluloid/movies/rosemary-lillu-designer-fb-post.html			Article is about a Facebook note posted by the subject	✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/shortstube-ads-bags-google-partner-badge-status-becomes-a-part-of-the-first-ever-indian-youtube-marketing-partner-agencies-listed-on-google20221021121816/			Passing mention	✘ No
https://cinemadaddy.com/rosemary-lillu-the-lady-who-conquers-mollywood-with-her-art/		Posted by "WEBADMIN". No editorial oversight. Similar to other unreliable entertainment websites from India		✘ No
https://www.asianetnews.com/special-entertainment/rose-mary-lillu-about-poster-design-qrwuj3			Article is about a Facebook note posted by the subject	✘ No
https://reviewbyparivartan.com/neru-box-office-collection-day-10-sacnilk/		Blog website that discusses the Neru Box Office Collection Day 10 from another unreliable website 'Sacnilk'	passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would like to note here that there are no policies backing the above 'keep' votes. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : 2 new secondary sources has been introduced into the article. One from The Hindu and the other from Malayala Manorama.The Manorama article is a 6 sentence article written from journalist point of view. Clearly passed Notability. Mischellemougly (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the Hindu article, it contributes to the GNG. Six lines on Malayala Manorama do not provide significant coverage but rather a summary of what the article/interview is about. We would still require one more reliable and independent source with significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Even though I am convinced with the news sources provided in the article meeting notability, just to convince Jeraxmoira🐉, I have introduced another detailed secondary news article from Times of India Malayalam into the page, which is written only from journalist point of view and its around a 500-600 word article. Further passes Notability Mischellemougly (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In an AfD, you need to convince other editors rather than yourself. The latest source you added reads like an interview and falls under the category of primary rather than a secondary source. Interviews by the subject are not secondary but primary. I believe, till now, we only have the subject's interviews as sources with significant coverage WP:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The new Times of India Malayalam that was introduced recently is not an interview article. Its entirely written from journalist point of view. Here the journalist is Bibin Babu and the article doesnt even ask any question or quotes anything that the subject said. Its entirely based on facts about the subject from journalist point of view and is purely a secondary news source. Mischellemougly (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the language and Google Translate shows a paragraph in the first person with a prompt for each paragraph. Also interprets 'she' as 'he.' If what you are saying is true, and if someone familiar with the language can confirm the same, then I believe you have WP:THREE now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am very much familiar with the malayalam language and thats why I said its not an interview article and its a secondary news source. The english translator by google is translating it very wrong. As you said it interprets "She" as "he" , but the true fact is no she or he is mentioned in that particular part in malayalam. It is actually written as a statement by the journalist. The article is fully from jounalist point of view. Mischellemougly (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, per nom and above source eval, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. [1] does not have independent SIGCOV showing WP:N. The other ref mentioned above [2] is an promo interview, "Rosemary opens up to Samayam Malayalam about how she came up with such an idea". BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : There are more reliable and secondary news sources other than the 2 mentioned above by Timothy, which was mentioned in my keep tag and agreed upon by the nominator itself. Mischellemougly (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that I didn't agree with you. I only mentioned that you may have WP:THREE. My nomination remains unchanged, favoring deletion. Similarly, the source eval is only reflects my assessment. Both WP:THREE and WP:Interview are essays, not official policies and I believe interviews are considered as primary sources by policy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Your previous comments justifies one article passes GNG and you mentioned the other Malayalam language article (Times of India Malayalam) which you are unaware of as you are not well versed in that language. Both the articles are neither interviews. Both written by jounalists and are secondary sources fully written based on journalist point of view. Mischellemougly (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments and source eval are based on my understanding of the sources provided and does not reflect the views of other editors. While I still agree that the one mentioned on the eval passes GNG from my understanding of WP:INTERVIEW, it is not backed by any direct policy, so other editors may have differing opinions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree with Jeraxmoira and think that the Manorama source provides significant coverage, but searches for her name in both English and Malayam find nothing other than what has already been mentioned in this AfD. Maybe if one of the two sources was a really detailed magazine profile, I'd vote keep, but two marginally usable newspaper sources isn't enough to establish notabiliy. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 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.