Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Varadharaj

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. ✗plicit 14:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Varadharaj[edit]

[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)

Non-notable film director. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions. No secondary source. Described as a comedian 6 years ago. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This ariticle no need to deletion because many information are upadted and the information real so no need deletion Vocal Olian (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was accepted by an AFC reviewer and has had recent improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: You really need to learn what constitutes a good source as your really not very good at it, at the moment. Ref 1,2,3, 4,5, 8 are youtube videos and 10 is imdb. None can be used to determine notability. The youtube references have views ranging from 8k to about 60-70k but they are all him, talking and having a laugh. Even if they were valid references, they are primary. Ref 6 is a black-hat seo page, and is non-rs. Ref 9 is a newspaper is a cast and crew profile of a film. Not one of them is a valid secondary source. Not one of them is decent primary source. I don't want to sound as though I'm mansplaining it, but is really important. scope_creep^Talk 07:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an example a proper film review, here is an example: Dr Who that details how good the actors are. It is Peter Cushing. It is a brand review. That is a classic secondary source for an actor, proving notability. Here is one for the theatre: This Richard III is historic and stylish – but why trim Shakespeare’s best lines?. These show immediately that the actors are notable as they are proper secondary sources. Here a theatre review of the Times of India. Review: Aaeen approaches populism and divisive rhetoric with a dash of satire Its small compared to a for example, a NY Times, Los Angelos Times, the Guardian, Balitmore Sun, The Telegraph review but it is genuine valid review, from the Times of India. Very rarely do you see the brand new actors that come in, with this type of review. scope_creep^Talk 07:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Scope creep, the sourcing is abysmal, and nothing in the article even if properly sourced would amount to sufficient evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2022 (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.