Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adhora Khan

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adhora Khan[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)

Failed WP:NACTOR

Has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has not a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Has no notable awards or nominations. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough sourcing to demonstrate that Khan meets WP:GNG. It also shows she has had two significant roles in notable films, so I believe she does meet the first criteria of WP:NACTOR, and she has been cast in two more roles in upcoming films, see [1]. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: (all sorts of WP:ANI stuff going on): Delete or draftify: (Subject to references) ~~article creator self-removed a validly created CSD tad as opposed to validly contesting it.~~ Most references appear to be in Bengali, without even a title translate to English in the citation. and while it is acceptable to use non English references it is difficult for those not proficient in the language to scrutinise the source. The only English Language source given appears to be for an upcoming film and therefore not acceptable for WP:RS as I recall. For article retention can I suggest per WP:THREE the three most suitable sources are presented here with sufficient evidence in English to prove their satisifaction of WP:RS. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC):Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark:, where did the article creator remove a CSD tag? I can't see the article being tagged for CSD in its history. Also, as you point out, there is no requirement for sources to be in English, so how can you use the fact that they are in Bengali to ignore them? If you want to read the sources, you can use Google translate on the online ones. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to all there was no CSD on this particular article and please WP:TROUT me on this and thankyou for pointing it out. In terms of non-English language sources, I believe without looking up guidelines/policies there is a preference to use English-language sources when available for the English Wikipedia. It is obviously far more difficult for me to scrutinize foreign language sources to check for press releases, conflict of interest, etc, etc. Google translate can be far more problematic and may not handle larger documents. Because of this I certainly don't want to waste my time scrutinizing multiple documents. As I say the creator couldn't even be bothered to before a trans-title ... though at least gave a lang= parameter. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. this article enough sourcing on google to meet WP:GNG. I didn't find any reason for deletion. According to (here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) all of news source are reliable source. an also she had two important roles in the notable film. she has acted in two more roles in the upcoming film. this article should not be deleted.-Nahal^(T) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for presenting your sources. I've checked the first three (as I said I would above), and they all seem to say she will apprear in a film so maybe WP:TOOSOON. On that basis I'n not changing my delete !vote. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This biography clearly fulfills these criteria as he She has received significant coverage in at least three leading mutually independent daily newspapers in Bangladesh. The concept of "WP:TOOSOON" applies when the basic criteria are not clearly met.-Nahal^(T) 21:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't begin to accept your argument unless their is an official gender re-assignation. Can you point out the source in which that occurred. And I want the 3 specific sources designated .... not a vague go and guess them. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty-naughty NahalAhmed Using this edit [2] to make me look like more of a stupid plonker than I am already am by changing the enrty. Striking one he and putting she would have been sufficient. We all make typos ... and I'm in the top 2%. The question here was by getting the gender incorrect was this a typo or had the articles been read correctly. What I am looking for here is not 9 sources too difficult for me to go throught but simply the 3 best sources that verify she is an established actress in published films say. In a waffley sort of way we may have this below but it is rather going a hard way about not demonstrating it conclusively.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that she/he with a strikeout. I'm almost certain if you presented just the 3 best sources or had the best sources first I might have !voted keep or at least weak week. As it is due to the ANI stuff I am staying out and neutral. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me. I was mistakenly writing for using 'he' . wikipedia isn't not a competition, i just think that she is probably notable actress, that's way I've show on some reliable source with my point. If she work/acted only a single movie then I Would vote delete. she acted in two movies in the lead role. I have found bangladeshi relaible news source in google by her bengali name. Considering everything i do vote weak keep. If this article will delete or keep , nothing to do. as a volunteer i just share my opinion.-Nahal^(T) 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Khan has only received press in February and October of 2018. Simply put under WP:N and applicable here, Khan fails to meet the requirement as she "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." Dr42 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see Kaler Kantho link "ছবিটিতে প্রধান দুই চরিত্রে অভিনয় করেছেন জনপ্রিয় নায়ক বাপ্পি চৌধুরী ও নবাগত নায়িকা অধরা খান।" (lit. translation:Bappy and introducing Adhora are the leading cast of Nayok) and Janakantha link "এ সময় চলচ্চিত্রের পরিচালক শাহীন সুমন, চিত্রনায়ক সাইমন সাদিক, নায়িকা অধরা খান, খল-অভিনেতা জয়রাজ, প্রযোজক শরীফ চৌধুরীসহ অনেকেই উপস্থিত ছিলেন। (lit trans. Adhora is the heroine of Matal). She is the lead actress in both films. And User:Dr42 please stop your WP:IDONTLIKE activities.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These films do not have WP articles nor are they inherently notable. Can you produce any sources that these films are notable? The actors, simply because they are top-billed cast in a film that we know nothing about, are not automatically notable. This is not a difficult question. Look at everyone from Daniel Craig to Nicole Kidman. Those are articles of established film stars. Yours are stubs. They contain non-notable (per WP:GNG) films that don't even have WP articles themselves. Even if you look at a 13 year old actor you'll find an article with more sources and citations (see: Jacob Tremblay). All I'm saying is that you need to corroborate and substantiate your articles. For the third time -- this is not about personal attacks. This is about policy. Try focusing on the quality of articles, not the quantity of new articles. Dr42 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Dr42: there is no requirement that reliable sources have to be over a particular time period. Nor is the lack of a Wikipedia article a good way to decide a film is not notable - that is explicitly not how we decide notability in either direction. The fact that the current sources in the article are from two months is not a policy-based reason to delete this article. There are eight reliable sources in the article already. How does that fail WP:GNG? If you really want to make up a rule about the time over which the sources are spread, here's an interview from The Daily Star from December 2018. Or you could go back to this piece in the Daily Sun from August 2016. Or this from ARB News 24 from June this year. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are seven articles from October 2018 and one from February 2016. This, in my opinion, does not reach the bar set for WP:SIGCOV. This is less than a year of continuous coverage of a non-notable individual. Khan hardly has enough coverage to warrant more than a few sentences in the article. If Khan is so notable, why isn't there more information about him in the article? Again, per policy, Khan fails to meet the requirement as she "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." Dr42 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - @Dr42: There are 11 sources, including the three I listed above. These span from 2016 to 2019, so your claim that there is less than a year of coverage is untrue. You have misread the eight (not seven) sources currently in the article - they range from February 2016 to October 2018. Even if that were not the case, there is no requirement in WP:SIGCOV for sources to extend over any given span of time. It simply does not say what you want it to say. She has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, over a range of three years. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are eight sources. Look at the current rendition of the article. Only eight sources. While I confess that I have no idea if they are reputable in Bangladesh, I can say without a doubt that 7 sources from October 2018 and one from February 2016 doesn't automatically push Khan into meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:SIGCOV or WP:N or WP:GNG. It's just not going to happen. The article itself consists of merely four sentences. Please, let us not pretend that this is a significant article worthy of fighting for when in reality, this deletion thread is already many times more than four sentences and no one has even edited the article to substantiate it or provide it with further sources or proof. This is my final word on the topic. It's not notable and vote is not changing. Dr42 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mirror Cracked: the user @Dr42: has WP:IDONTLIKE on me. The user put paid article on this article. And even reverted my message thrice from talk page.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to continue to use the WP:IDONTLIKE excuse, at least understand what it means. As it says in the essay, "The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like"." I have, with every edit and tag I've contributed, done so with justification, corroboration, substantiation, and in line with policy and regulations. You, on the other hand, are seemingly stating that I've resorted to saying "I don't like it" or one of its variants. I've provided well-constructed logic and reason to my contributions pertaining to your articles just as I have across all of the other edits I've made on WP. This has nothing to do with you personally. This has to do with your articles -- especially this one, which merely consists of four sentences. Dr42 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Deindent] @Dr42: your justifications here are unsupported by policy. You are wrong about WP:SIGCOV and WP:N and WP:GNG. Please don't claim that you are following policy when you are obviously not. Your claims above are not at all policy-based The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to @Dr42: a paid article may contain merely four sentences without any image?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Say what you will about your interpretation of WP policy, but it's clear that WP:SIGCOV, WP:N and WP:GNG are not met in this article. These policies are a unified set of guidelines that this four sentence vanity article clearly does not meet - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." There are no sources that discuss Khan in detail. They are about the film and are cursory and trivial at best. Thus, per the above-mentioned policies, the article does not meet WP:GNG and doesn't even meet WP:NACTOR for the reasons given above. My vote is not changing. My vote remains unchanged and it is a resounding Delete since the "topic has [not] received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, [and] it is [not] presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Dr42 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are hard to find because only these national arguments disregard Project:no personal attacks policy.-Nahal^(T) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. I have a low opinion of this article as I see it. But I currently don't intend to argue for either keeping or deleting, because the cited sources and most likely most or all of the sources that could be added are in a language I cannot read. However, I note that (i) although it's referred to above as a "vanity article" no evidence is provided for this being so (and the article is free of the sycophantic language that I associate with vanity articles), and (ii) although the article was and remains flagged with a template saying "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use", the talk page neither says anything about this nor refers the interested editor/reader to an explanation elsewhere. Dr42, why do you say that it is a vanity article? What evidence do you have to suggest that it was created for money? -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answers. Based on the user's edit history and narrow focus, he seems to be cornering the creation of Bangladeshi articles for politicians and actors. I have a suspicion that this individual may be compensated for his work by either the Bangladeshi government, a union (or unions), or even a board of trade or tourism. It's mere speculation. That's why the word "may" is used in the sentence (i.e. "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments) (emphasis added)". It is merely a possibility. As for why I've determined that this is a vanity article, there was formerly an entire essay on vanity articles on WP if I recall correctly, but it's mostly been transferred to this page on COI. Based on the article creator's past, it seems that he has a penchant for a niche of articles as opposed to contributing to all areas of wikipedia. He has a very narrow scope. And that narrow scope of articles, consisting of mainly Bangladeshi politicians and actors, has unfortunately landed the user in hot water a few times. See user talk page, specifically here, here, here, here, and here. My suspicions are merely that: suspicions. That's why words such as "may" and "might" are used as opposed to definitive words such as "undoubtedly" or "provably". As to whether or not the article creator has a personal relationship or friendship that would be a COI we have no way of knowing. I am acting out of an abundance of caution based on the < 24 hours that I've seen this user in action, including the depths he will go to defend the articles he has created when they are simply not notable individuals. Again, if they are notable, and if they do meet GNG, so be it. But if the article has been created solely based on the person's existence without corroborating and substantiating proof, then that's what I think I'd call a vanity article because it serves one purpose -- vanity. It's a four sentence article about an actor that's not notable nor is she engaged in any work that's notable or falls under SIGCOV or GNG. That's really all I have to opine on the subject. Again, my vote is delete. It's a vanity article. The article creator has a narrow scope. And there's not much else to convince me otherwise. Dr42 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On being paid: "It's mere speculation. [...] It is merely a possibility." On vanity: "My suspicions are merely that: suspicions. [...] [I]f the article has been created solely based on the person's existence without corroborating and substantiating proof, then that's what I think I'd call a vanity article because it serves one purpose -- vanity. [...] It's a vanity article." This is feeble stuff, Dr42. You claim to be "acting out of an abundance of caution", but you seem oddly incautious in questioning motivation. Please read and digest WP:AGF. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary please said to the user not to harass me. Today he put 4 CSDs (3 of them declined and another is Nimish Pilankar and 1 AfD (Pramod Khanna) on my articles. Even, alleged me with false allegations on WP:ANI.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary please said to the user not to harass me. Today he put 4 CSDs (3 of them declined and another is Nimish Pilankar and 1 AfD (Pramod Khanna) on my articles. Even, alleged me with false allegations on WP:AN.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about the article, not about its creator or any other editor. Also, your complaint is already at WP:ANI. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article meets WP:GNG but my concern is to add more English language sources. I have noticed only one particular source in English. Abishe (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reviewed/patrolled S. M. Nazmus Shakib's articles in the past and I am not convinced against the allegations against him. The user according to my knowledge has also created biographies about Indian politicians as well apart from Bangladesh related stuff. The right of creating articles related to their home nations cannot be questioned. Abishe (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the tags should be removed from the article despite of AfD. What are you thinking?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Khan meets WP:GNG. also meets WP:NACTOR (she has had two significant roles in notable films) Wm335td (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wm335td (she does meet NACTOR), and NahalAhmed's sources above, plus two additional interviews with her that I have added to her BLP from the The Daily Star (Bangladesh) (the largest daily english paper in Bangladesh) here and here. No longer TOOSOON, she has arrived and is being interviewed by Bangladesh RS. Britishfinance (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: not convinced that just two roles, though significant, are enough to meet WP:NACTOR. I feel the article is a bit premature in this respect, but, at the same time, I'm hesitant to be too harsh on the article because it seems as though the actress will become more notable in the near future. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:31, 1 January 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.