Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Nazim
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. MBisanz talk 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammad Nazim[edit]
- Mohammad Nazim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. WP:ENT states that to become notable, one actor must have roles in multiple notable television shows, but here it's stated that the actor has only one role: Saath Nibhaana Saathiya. As per WP:TOOSOON this article must be deleted. NDTV is the only source I found in Google News, so this article becomes eligible for deletion under two notability guidelines:-WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Forgot to put name 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Added multiple citations. WP:GNG is now invalid.
- As for notablity, Any actor may be notable even with a limited number of portrayals(See list of actors for Student_of_the_Year_(film)): In this case, he has got "a large cult following" which can be proven. 12k article views in 90 days shows that he indeed has quite a following. (Page views for the newly created Ahem Modi must also be monitored in the coming few days) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 12000 in 90 days is very small cult following. According to that page view statistics tool, Alia Bhatt has recorded 390687 page views in the last 30 days. Alia Bhatt has only one role in film: Student of the Year, but has a very large cult following. Comparing to this, Mohammad Nazim's cult following appears to be very small. Forgot to put name 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider the page sizes of the two pages. Alia Bhatt has a decent sized page, while the subject has hardly a few coherent lines (most of which have also been removed now - Thank you). One can then hardly expect the page views to boost (Since they are directly connected to the position where Google displays the Wikipedia link when searched). A quick google search count on both Ahem Modi (the more household name for the actor) and Mohammad Nazim would make things clearer (I do not know how to - Can anyone do that?). And lastly, Alia Bhatt is a movie actress, which gave a natural boost to her page views around the time of the release of the movie (55k views on 21 October; 14k yesterday). TV actors do not get that kind of heavy interest - In their case it's more of a sustained smaller long term interest with minor spikes. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, you are right. However, atleast some people must land on the subject. I searched for Mohammad Nazim in Google and found that the Wikipedia link came in 2nd position. So that is not much difference between Alia Bhatt and the subject. As you are saying that "TV actors do not get that kind of heavy interest", I reviewed another similar page - Giaa Manek and I found that it recorded around 32k views in last 30 days. Another similar article - Sriti Jha has recorded 17k page views in last 30 days. The two actors mentioned above are not of heavy interest. 17k in 30 days and 12k in 90 days seems to be very low. Forgot to put name 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more of a case of the name with which the actor is famous. Smriti Irani has not played the role of Tulsi for 5 years now, and yet she is still remembered by almost everyone I know as "Tulsi", and not Smriti. In the West, Sheldon Cooper might be remembered as Jim Parsons too, but not in India. A comparison for the Google count for Gopi Modi (Giaa Manek) or Anandi (Avika Gor) or Ahem (the subject) is more appropriate when you compare with a movie actress like Alia Bhatt.
- As for the heavy interest, I disagree on Gia (I can't say about the latter as I am not aware) - She has quite a heavy interest; But just not enough when it comes to a Wikipedia page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How you say that Gia is of heavy interest? I searched Google just now; no significant difference was found between Gopi Modi, Aham Modi and Anandi Jagdish Singh - The name with which the actor/actresses are famous. But when it comes to Wikipedia page, there is significant difference between actor/actresses. As per Alexa Internet, Wikipedia is the 6th most visited site. So there mustn't be much difference. I would appreciate an unbiased, experienced editor to make the judgement. Forgot to put name 16:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am from India, and so have a working knowledge of who these people are. My point there was that when you compare with a movie actress like Bhatt, you compare their more common role names, not their real names. The real names get way less hits than the common names.
- When it comes to Indian actors and actresses, especially TV actors and actresses, Wikipedia pages usually contain a lot less than what is given in other places. Thus most of the traffic for stubs and lower level pages go to other sites and not Wikipedia. So for smaller articles, you find the traffic being not as representative of the popularity levels as a Google count. (Alia, being recent news, would be an exception to this rule-of-thumb). On the other hand, the longer articles are relatively well-developed, and so for Amitabh Bachchan or Vidya Balan, you find the traffic to be high and quite similar to the Google count. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How you say that Gia is of heavy interest? I searched Google just now; no significant difference was found between Gopi Modi, Aham Modi and Anandi Jagdish Singh - The name with which the actor/actresses are famous. But when it comes to Wikipedia page, there is significant difference between actor/actresses. As per Alexa Internet, Wikipedia is the 6th most visited site. So there mustn't be much difference. I would appreciate an unbiased, experienced editor to make the judgement. Forgot to put name 16:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, you are right. However, atleast some people must land on the subject. I searched for Mohammad Nazim in Google and found that the Wikipedia link came in 2nd position. So that is not much difference between Alia Bhatt and the subject. As you are saying that "TV actors do not get that kind of heavy interest", I reviewed another similar page - Giaa Manek and I found that it recorded around 32k views in last 30 days. Another similar article - Sriti Jha has recorded 17k page views in last 30 days. The two actors mentioned above are not of heavy interest. 17k in 30 days and 12k in 90 days seems to be very low. Forgot to put name 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider the page sizes of the two pages. Alia Bhatt has a decent sized page, while the subject has hardly a few coherent lines (most of which have also been removed now - Thank you). One can then hardly expect the page views to boost (Since they are directly connected to the position where Google displays the Wikipedia link when searched). A quick google search count on both Ahem Modi (the more household name for the actor) and Mohammad Nazim would make things clearer (I do not know how to - Can anyone do that?). And lastly, Alia Bhatt is a movie actress, which gave a natural boost to her page views around the time of the release of the movie (55k views on 21 October; 14k yesterday). TV actors do not get that kind of heavy interest - In their case it's more of a sustained smaller long term interest with minor spikes. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 12000 in 90 days is very small cult following. According to that page view statistics tool, Alia Bhatt has recorded 390687 page views in the last 30 days. Alia Bhatt has only one role in film: Student of the Year, but has a very large cult following. Comparing to this, Mohammad Nazim's cult following appears to be very small. Forgot to put name 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An experienced, unbiased editor will be able to clarify this case. Not able to determine how the subject is not recording enough page views. I searched Google with keywords "Aham Modi saath nibhaana saathiya" and didn't find the article. Forgot to put name 05:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article lists five sources for a short lead sentence. The article should be expanded upon using those, but it still doesn't appear notable to stay. — WylieCoyote 17:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs improvement, not deletion. The sources verify that the subject is notable, and the article makes a valid claim for notablity - Being the lead actor in one of the largest television shows in the second most populous country of the world. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CAWylie makes a point — It still doesn't appear notable to stay. Non-notable under WP:ENT. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at WP:ENT and only leave in what matters regarding the subject:
- Entertainers
- Actors
, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:- 1.
Has had significant roles inmultiplenotable films, television shows, stage performances, or otherproductions. - 2.
Has alarge fan base ora significant "cult"following. - 3. Has made
unique, prolific or innovativecontributions toa field ofentertainment.
- 1.
- Nope, nope, and nope! Delete! — WylieCoyote 13:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the fact that multiple productions does not apply in this case.
- I disagree.
- Pardon me for the language, but Bullshit. He has as much of a contribution to entertainment as Jim Parsons. (Not the best of examples, but thats the one I could find) And yet we have a page on Parsons. I suggest that if you do not know about Indian media, you do not comment on it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. But since you wish to be prejudicial between countries, Jim Parsons has won awards, Mohammad Nazim has not, or they are not listed in the article, which is the very reason for notability. And since you have resorted to not being civil, my part in this discussion is over... my vote proven. — WylieCoyote 15:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I wished to show the equivalence between Parsons and Nazim.
- I think I said "Pardon me for the language". I knew it wasnt the most friendly word, but it certainly was the most apt. I just spoke my mind here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. But since you wish to be prejudicial between countries, Jim Parsons has won awards, Mohammad Nazim has not, or they are not listed in the article, which is the very reason for notability. And since you have resorted to not being civil, my part in this discussion is over... my vote proven. — WylieCoyote 15:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at WP:ENT and only leave in what matters regarding the subject:
- CAWylie makes a point — It still doesn't appear notable to stay. Non-notable under WP:ENT. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs improvement, not deletion. The sources verify that the subject is notable, and the article makes a valid claim for notablity - Being the lead actor in one of the largest television shows in the second most populous country of the world. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Single television show does not make up to notability of an actor. Fails WP:ENT.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (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.