Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Lillu

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. As this is due to relatively light participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Lillu[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources 1,2 and 3 are interviews with the subject. 4 is an article generated from her Facebook note/post Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:before has nothing significant. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Film, India, and Kerala. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Source 1 is The Hindu article - reliable, independent, secondary and featured article written majority from journalist point of view. Its a 500+ word article.

Source 2 is Deshabhimani article - reliable, independent, secondary and featured article with 6 sentences from journalist point of view. Its a 500+ word article. Source 3 is Times of India malayalam version samayam article. It is based on a work of the subject. Its a over 1000 article. Source 4 is Vanitha magazine article is a reliable news source removed by the afd nominator. Source 5 is Asianet News article which has 5 sentence from journalist point of view. passes notability Mischellemougly (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Interviews and reports of interviews are primary sources. The Vanitha article is generated from the subject's Facebook post. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep. Topics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the general notability guideline. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As detailed by Mischellemougly, there are reliable secondary sources for this article. Rublamb (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rublamb. Are interviews with the subject considered as a secondary source? If not, could you please explain how BLP passes GNG? I am also open to a source assessment table from any uninvolved editor. Jeraxmoira (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article that incorportes an interview is a secondary source as it also includes analysis and comentary by the article's author. See also the article that I added to external links. Rublamb (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you saw the Hindu article [1] which has the analysis and commentary by the article's author. The other's are standalone interviews with no analysis and commentary. Source 4 and 6 are articles generated from subject's Facebook posts. Jeraxmoira (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 1, 2, 3, and the article I added to external links include editorial content. Rublamb (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ on this. Only the Hindu article contains enough analysis and commentary throughout to be considered a secondary source. Citations 2 and 3 merely provide a gist at the top, which I believe are routine procedures followed by all Indian entertainment news media outlets to include a small brief of the subject. The external link is an unreliable website with no editorial oversight. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: We might have to disagree on Cinema Daddy; it has staff that curate its content and, therefore, appears to be reliable. Regardless, interviews can and do count toward notability. WP:INTERVIEWS says "A multitude of interviews...shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." This is especially so when the interviews are in reliable or noted publications. When the interviews in Deshabhimani and The Times of India are considered along with a feature article in The Hindu, there is enough coverage in major publications to keep this article. Also, keep in mind that not all content from an interview is considered primary; again, I refer you to WP:INTERVIEWS. Rublamb (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Cinema Daddy's about page, they are a entertainment portal that shares film updates. There is no editorial oversight, which makes it similar to the 1000 other entertainment websites that do the same(I would be glad to share some examples). WP:INTERVIEWS also states that However, the mere fact that a person has been interviewed does not automatically mean that interviewee qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article, and an article must still cite a mixture of other types of non-interview sourcing as well. and Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability. I would also like to note last few words of what you quoted, that it is only considered as evidence of notability.
Only the Hindu featured article would qualify under GNG on a source assessment table. The Times of India is generally considered unreliable, see WP:TOI. As previously stated, Deshabhimani does not have analysis/commentary to consider it as a secondary source. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the only other source I could find [2], not likely a RS. We have one good source and a few non-RS. I don't think we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2024 (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.