Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athar Siddiqui

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athar Siddiqui[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Athar Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't have multiple significant roles. Sources cites are all rewritten press material. No in-depth discussion of the work of the subject at any sources. Only routine coverage in an attempt to keep the subject relevant and alive in media. Person who moved it back to main space is Questionable - with first edit as a Weak Keep on a deletion discussion and later, within very few edits, having confidence on moving draft back claiming that it satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I don't see how any of these two are satisfied. Very much okay to be proven wrong. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No in-depth coverage. All the times of India sources are either PR and/or filled with direct quotations from the subject or trivial mentions. - hako9 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per WP:NACTOR (#1) policy. The actor has played a significant role in multiple notable productions as listed in the article and those claims are well sourced with reliable sources. 42.106.216.188 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is a significant role according to you? Most of the questionably notable tv series in which the said actor has appeared are roles which would be considered as supporting roles, inferred from what I can see in the respective articles on tv series.
      Most of these tv series fails GNG anyway. More importantly none of the sources are reliable (incl TOI) and none are WP:SIGCOV.
      Wikipedia isn't a tv directory for Indian soap operas. By your ridiculously lax inference of SNG, you are advocating just that- hako9 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is not the only route to establishing notability. As per WP:NTV TV shows that air on television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience are presumed to be notable. Below is the list of significant roles played by the actor:
The actor played Mahabali one of the main characters in Jag Janani Maa Vaishno Devi - Kahani Mata Rani Ki.[1]
Played Devantak one of the important characters in Vighnaharta Ganesha.
Played Bhimdev in Chandra Nandini
Played Kaliya Naag one of the important characters in Paramavatar Shri Krishna.
Played Virabhadra in Jhansi Ki Rani (2019 TV series)
42.106.218.140 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are not significant roles. Nope! Curious to understand what is your connection with the subject. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connection with the subject, but i would like to know how these role (very much important for these series) are not significant? Please explain in details. As you can see these are mythological series and they are incomplete without characters played by the subject in question. If you don’t know how please read the history of particular character, they all have independent articles. 42.106.218.44 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting to play on ambiguity of the word significant in the guidelines. Allow me to explain what I think - significant role, according to me, would imply to a role that is significant in relative to the entire duration of the show and not playing a significant part in the plot or the story. In short, I would relate it directly to the screen time if being utmost crude. One cheat code that I follow to determine significance (it works positively in most of the cases but won't recommend others to make it a golden rule), is to check the chronological number the subject is listed in the cast section. If it is not in top 3-4, I usually consider it not as a significant role (Again, this rule should be apply with caution and the context of the show/film should be checked). While the subject plays significant mythological roles, these roles are not significant if seen from the perspective of the entire show. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:NACTOR and points mentioned by the IP above. Siddiqui has played significant roles in multiple notable productions and currently playing the antagonist in Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2 which is the reason why I moved this article. In2020 (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ In2020, Some observations:
  1. You are one of the other major contributors of this article
  2. This page has your most significant contributions if seen your not so lengthy edit history
  3. Your talk page reflects a COI warning
  4. Your first edit was a vote at a deletion discussion
  5. You have less than 50 edits but you know how to move a page

I will let other editors draw conclusions from these observations about your nature of edits and the relevance of your vote here. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources presented in the article do not amount to in-depth coverage and are heavily dependent on a single source, Times of India. The coverage seems minor. I can't speak to the roles performed, but after looking at each article listed above - the features appear to list a significant number of actors, among which Siddiqui is not especially standing out - our own coverage of him does not indicate significance of roles performed, so I do agree that this presently fails WP:NACTOR. Source search, particularly WP:RSSE turns up mostly Times of India, which is noted in WP:RSP "to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable." In this case, I would say the standard for notability demands more in-depth coverage than shown currently - I'm not seeing evidence of passing WP:GNG. A S U K I T E  05:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per analysis by Asukite. Notability of the TV shows listed above is shaky and the subject does not seem to stand apart from many other actors listed in the cast. So, NACTOR is not met and there's not enough coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2021 (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.
  1. ^ https://zeenews.india.com/television/athar-siddiqui-set-to-play-antagonist-on-tv-2229230.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Athar_Siddiqui&oldid=1035140610"