Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Bedi

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 for reasons of insufficient coverage. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bedi[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:NACTOR. References are extremely poor as is the article. Almost WP:TNT in nature. Lots of passing mentions but no real coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actor, writer, director with a long list of performances in reputable venues. Had a role in a play directed by Pinter. Nominated for an Offie in 2011 for directing Macbeth.1. --

Jaireeodell (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on the basis of criterion #1 of NACTOR having been met, due to the performances pointed out by Jaireeodell Jack4576 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appearing in a cast and being nominated for an award, doesn't make you notable. Lets look at the references:

Ref 1 [1] It mentions a Sam Bedi but I don't see Sarah Bedi mentioned. Passing mention at best.

Ref 2 [2] States Sam Bedi again. Passing menton at best.

Ref 3 [3] Non-RS.

Ref 4 [4] Passing mention.

Ref 5 Facebook and Twitter are non-rs.

Ref 6 [5] Profile on theatre production site. It is a profiles and is not in-depth nor independent.

Ref 7 [6] 404'd

Ref 8 [7] 404'd

Ref 9 [8] 404'd

Ref 10 [9] 404'd

Ref 11 [10] 404'd

Four passing mentions, 5 404's, 2 non-RS's and a self-written profile which is WP:PRIMARY. Doing an illustrative WP:BEFORE on the AFC reliable sources search on Google CSE finds:

Ref 1 [11] Passing mention.

Ref 2 [12] Passing mention.

Ref 3 [13] Passing mention.

Ref 4 [14] Passing mention.

There isn't even an interview on the subject. As a director, Bedi has zero meaningful coverage to warrant an article, that is WP:BLP. It fails WP:SIGCOV. It Passes WP:V probably but that is best you can say on it. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources explained above are about as much as there is, and it's all non-substantial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was credited as "Sam Bedi" because the production wanted to hide the fact that she was a girl, but I think Pinter's brief comments are enough to matter. I used the Internet Archive to fix the 404s. I think a review of a play that she wrote or directed is a valid confirmation of notability, even though it doesn't discuss her at great length. And I added some other references. I think that this all adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scope creep's fantastic source review made it pretty clear that this article fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since you have updated the references, it is worth examining them again. I will do the first two blocks.

Ref 1 [15] The same reference above. Two lines. Passing mention at best.
Ref 2 [16] one line. Passing mention at best.
Ref 3 [17] Non-rs.
Ref 4 Simon Gray Key Plays, page VIII I can't identify it, but as its in the introduction, it is either a profile or a passing mention at best.
Ref 5 [18] Passing mention. Its a list of names with no context. It is also non-rs.
Ref 6 Facebook. Non-rs
Ref 7 Twitter. Non-rs
Ref 8 [19] WP:PRIMARY. Passing mention.
Ref 9 [20] IMDB style listing at BFI. WP:PRIMARY
Ref 10 [21] 404'd
Ref 11 [22] 404'd
Ref 12 [23] A review. Single mention. Passing mention at best.
Ref 13 [24] 404'd

So this time, several references have been updated by Eastmain to effectively show they are either a primary references, or passing mentions. Of the two blocks, 13 refs where you expect to find some of substance, we have 6 passing mentions, 3 404'd and 3 non-rs and a primary reference that is a listing. There is no substance to these references. This is a WP:BLP. Real WP:SECONDARY sourcing is needed and its absent here. scope_creep^Talk 09:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval by scope creep above shows there are no sources from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 16:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Scope Creep's extensive analysis. Ravenswing 01:32, 22 May 2023 (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.