Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tridha Choudhury

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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tridha Choudhury

[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)

It so seems that this Choudhury article was created by a sockpuppet who has since been indefinitely banned and the strangest thing is over the years, users who have edited the subject's article have only been involved in editing this vanity article. It does not end here. Most of the sources cited on this article are either irrelevant or do not exist. This vanity article which seems to have been created by the subject itself should be deleted at the soonest. Cinewoman06 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to the daily log. Fixed now--I have not yet formed an opinion of my own on the nomination itself. Nominating account has no other edits. --Finngall ^talk 15:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Very notable actress who has played the lead in several films. Not to mention the amount of references available on the internet. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8], [9], and [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamilMirchi (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TamilMirchi: As someone who should be familiar with the General Notability Guideline, dumping a wall of links doesn't typically sway an AFD. Which of these sources qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~These are the sources. [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. --TamilMirchi (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Let's take those sources one by one:

TOI tells us that Choudhury was in Dahleez, it says that she was largely out of work, but did a few commercials, and it tells us that she's going to be in Spotlight. In depth coverage? I think not.
This TOI piece seems fairly detailed, but considering the byline is "Timesofindia.com", without any specific writer, it has the shape of a press release, which would not be considered independent.
This Deccan Chronicle piece merely mentions that she was in Surya vs Surya and Manasuku Nachindi, and that one time she did a water workout. Hardly in-depth coverage.
This Deccan Chronicle piece tells us that she is Bengali, that she will be in a film directed by Deva Katta, that she is also going to be in Surya vs. Surya, and that she has signed a Tamil film. There is zero other information about her.
The Indian Express article tells us three facts about the subject: she works in Bengali and Telugu films, she's a lead in Spotlight, 3) She was previously in Dahleez.

So assuming that the lengthy TOI piece is not a press release, only one of the sources you weeded out speaks about the subject in depth. The other stuff is fluff and would do very little to establish notability. So I don't think anybody has adequately demonstrated that the subject meets the General Notability Guideline. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Here is one more: [16] --TamilMirchi (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: TamilMirchi has been indefinitely blocked for violating WP:PAID. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR. Has significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A differently-named user, Asiljohn, complained at this AFD about the Tridha Choudhury article being a "hoax" . Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: She has numerous citations by one of the biggest newspaper in India, India Times. -- Juju (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jujucabana: Since you are participating in an AFD, I have to assume you are familiar with our general notability guidelines, and since AFDs are decided on strength of argument, not vote, can you elaborate on your answer? The mere fact that someone is mentioned in one of the biggest newspapers in India doesn't make them notable by default. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Numerous headlines about the topic in the third biggest newspaper in India is enough to pass the general notability guidelines. It is significant coverage, reliable, and "independent of the subject." This was ridiculous to even contest and I can't believe that someone did that. They must not have read the notability guidelines at all. - Juju (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines are not significant coverage. Detailed writing about the subject is significant coverage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hate to vote against this one, but I have to agree with @Cypoidbomb - I don't see the notability. Subject here has been mentioned in headlines, and has a bunch of films credited to her name, but how does that make her any different from the other thousands of actors/actresses who have also accomplished this? Is there anything else that makes her truly notable?10Sany1? (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, she has a bunch of films to her credit like thousands of other actors who have also accomplished this. That itself makes her "truly notable." -- Ab207 (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Acting is a job. Many people have jobs. Being in films doesn't by default make someone more important than, say, a plumber. This is why we have our various notability criteria. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that merely being an actor doesn't establish notability. But Choudhury has played a leading role in at least three notable films, namely, Surya vs Surya (2015), Manasuku Nachindi (2018), and Anukunnadi Okkati Ayyandhi Okati (2020), hence satisfying WP:NACTOR. The user voting above may have overlooked/not assessed that part. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I don't raise these points just to be a dick--people often !vote in AFDs and make statements that aren't reflective of actual community preferences (like the thing above about headlines). So it's important to me to make sure that people are arguing properly. It's nice to see that you understand the guidelines.

Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have argued on policy in my earlier comment instead of beating around the bush. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes WP:NACTOR criteria, but fails GNG. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are fairly detailed and about the subject: [17][18]. I'm on the fence about the first one since it has no clear writer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, I understand the GNG requirements but the subject's roles in Mishawr Rawhoshyo, Khaad, Surya vs Surya, Khawto, Manasuku Nachindi, Shesh Theke Shuru, Seven, Anukunnadi Okkati Ayyandhi Okati is a lot? Along with the roles in Dahleez. I would regard this enough for the subject meeting the SNG criteria. I've already said that the subject fails GNG, and arguably the article you're referring to, maybe a paid one or from the editorial? Who knows? I guess if the SNG criteria is somehow met, we may keep the article adding curation tags to it, without pushing the GNG thing? I know GNG is everything, but SNG too is something? Ain't it? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 08:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the specific notability guideline is significant, and you'll notice that I've neither !voted in this AFD nor am I arguing with anybody about whether or not the subject is notable. I'm just performing due diligence to point out that on this page there are at least two articles written about the subject that are in depth and from reliable sources. Well, TOI is a bit of a grey area, but I don't think they've really been challenged when it comes to fluffy entertainment pieces. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, My bad, Sorry! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- While in-depth coverage about her seems to be the slightly lacking, her acting career looks notable with quite a few acting credits to her name. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as played prominent roles in multiple notable films and easily passes WP:NACTOR.Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cursory glance at page; good number of works. Germsteel (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2020 (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.