Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jal Shah

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. Discounting the sock !vote and observing that other !votes have changed consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jal Shah[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)

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it needs to be rewritten and fixed up but she has been in some productions and won awards. Might meet WP:GNG--Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Unable to meet WP:NACTOR. Also WP:NRV.Advait (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This sock has made a couple dozen drive-by afd votes on India related articles. Unlikely they have done due diligence - hako9 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Jal shah was a well known actress of Nepal in 90s. There are no good online links to describe her biography becuase she has not been in the industry for a long time[1]. There should sufficient offline magzines and newspaper coverage in Nepali about her which is evident from the fact that she played as a lead female character in about 20 nepali movies. nirmal (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nirmal. WP:NEXIST; WP:BIAS. This may have usable SIGCOV if someone can get it. I don't know why the nom says this fails WP:NACTOR. Plenty of bluelinks in the filmography; someone just needs to hit the archives. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending towards keep, relisting in hopes that someone will be able to dig sources up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning delete~~ ~~Delete~~ Weak keep All three keep arguments are WP:TMBS and in my opinion need to be completely dismissed. @Usedtobecool: NEXIST states, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.. The onus of proof is on you btw. You say "This may have usable SIGCOV". Well, that's some lazy defense, isn't it? Essentially saying, I haven't read the said book, but you go ahead find it, read it. Regarding, "Plenty of bluelinks in the filmography". All the bluelinks are unsourced too. Doesn't help your claim. For a persuasive argument, an editor arguing keep, needs to provide an WP:OFFLINE source, assuming as per User:Nirmaljoshi "There are no good online links", and unlike the offline source provided by Usedtobecool, the editor needs to claim that they have actually read it, and the source is reliable,verifiable,sigcov according to that editor. I'd recommend a delete for now, in absence of such source, without prejudice to anyone wanting a userfication, if they think they'll be able to produce a source in the future. - hako9 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you are mistaken. That was not a defence. This is not a courtroom. AFDs are not battles to be won. Someone had a concern. I said why they need not have it. I found a source that does not let me read the whole book but going by the TOC and the first few lines of the page the TOC points to, it is obvious that there is one complete page of chronological biography which starts with "Born to RM Karmacharya and Prema Shah in Lalitpur, Jal Shah ..." It is a group effort and I have no responsibility to do any more than I can. If I had said, "speedy keep", "snow keep", "strong keep" or whatever, and "trout the nom", you might have had a point.
It's irrelevant what state the articles are in. As long as they are there, this article passes NACTOR. No one is stopping anyone from getting those articles deleted first, and then renomming. But we can not go down the rabbit hole trying to figure out the GNG-anchor for our SNG-based articles, not in one AFD. I have improved the article since it was AFDed by the way. And here is one in-depth online piece by an imminent journalist, which you can read to at least understand why I think we'd look ridiculous to delete this. Again, I am not linking this to win a battle. I am linking it because I found it and I want everyone to be able to see for themselves why I argue what I argue. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't in good faith, claim that this is significant coverage. Except for a few sentences, the article is about her mother. Also, is Online Khabar, a reliable source in Nepal? Can anyone from Nepal confirm or deny please. And remember that scrutiny of your claims in afd doesn't mean it's a battle for me. None of this actress' filmography indicates that any of those are notable films. So before asserting that she passes NACTOR, make sure there are reliable sources for Thuldai, Nepal Pyaro Chha etc. These films are one prod away from deletion. - hako9 (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Online Khabar is reliable but not reputable enough for GNG; it has been cited sometimes by other reliable sources. And I did not say it was in a reliable source or was significant coverage, although the coverage is significant; I said it was written by an imminent journalist. I leave it to the readers to judge whether I was overreacting in my previous comment. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drop in again. As i mentioned earlier, she is out of acting field now, hence there are no online info on her acting carrier. But the main stream media and gossip magzines still are intrested on her. For example:

-Coverage in mainstream media on her future carrier. [2]

-Seems she in USA and has been elected as an official in american-nepali organization. [3][4]

-Her opinion picked up by three different medias on weather she is going to come back Nepal. [5][6][7]

-Other coverages.[8][9] [10]

I put upto you guys to decide about the sources if they are reliable or useless. Best! nirmal (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot in good conscience vote keep here. None of these are sigcov, assuming any of them are even reliable sources in Nepal. This is basically a short interview and not WP:IS. I think others are self-explanatory. All of these look like fan blogs honestly. The standards for notability for BLPs regarding sigcov cannot be diluted just because of the bad state of affairs of Nepali media in covering their celebrities. It's fine by me, if the closing admin wants to close this discussion as keep/no-consensus without relisting again, but I am still leaning delete. - hako9 (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would truly be a unique BLP though, where subject has acted in a dozen films, but no sources have been provided to claim any of those films are notable. And none of the dozen or so links provided above, satisfy all three conditions of significant coverage, reliable source and independent source. - hako9 (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more sources: Lux Film Awards for Actress in a leading role [11] Biography Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 15:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striked my delete vote since although I believe all above sources including those presented by User:Bada Kaji aren't reliable+independent+sigcov, it is highly likely that better sources exists, and I also believe we have conventionally kept articles that are this notable, so NEXIST is justified and a delete based on my above very stringent interpretation of policy is not. - hako9 (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I was unable to find reliable sources that meet WP:SIGCOV. The sources provided up to this point briefly mention Shah's acting career and give more weight to her chairman role with Nepali American Artists Association, her comments on living in the US or Nepal and her comments on acting again. Given the sources in this discussion and their content, a balanced, full-page article can't actually be written about Shah, and per WP:WHYN, a reliably-sourced full article is the goal. Shah's films Je Bho Ramrai Bho and Nepal Pyaro Chha are on the IMDB website, but I do not believe that is enough to pass WP:ENT.

My vote is based on the document Bada Kaji found, and National Film Awards (Nepal). Shah passes WP:ANYBIO for winning a Lux Film Award and a prestigious National Film Award in 2005. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:35, 4 November 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.