Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thulasi Nair (2nd nomination)

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. Despite keep and delete votes being roughly equal here, the rationale to delete is somewhat more convincing. While there is some demonstrated coverage of this individual, both sides agree that the coverage is not terribly significant. In addition, the coverage does not describe any particularly notable events in this individual's life (i.e. events that would satisfy WP:NACTOR). While it is true that WP:BASIC says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", it also says, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." This is a case where the collection of trivial coverage does not seem to establish notability. Once the films have been released and covered in reliable sources, notability can and should be reevaluated. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thulasi Nair[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 7. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by the reliable independent sources in the article --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's in 2 movies that haven't even finished filming. MiracleMat (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Which guideline says that actors whose film haven't been released should not have an article in Wikipedia? There are multiple sources from national newspapers to establish notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been noted above. (Personal attack removed)MiracleMat (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the daughter of someone famous isn't sufficient. Maybe if and when she has an actual career. --Calton | Talk 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural closure Here we go again. How can this closer justify closing the DRV without an explanation, allowing no due process time for editors to escalate the unexplained closing, and then start an AfD discussion without an explanation? This is not a new problem, this nominator has a history of such nominations. This is the editor that added something called "the procedural nomination" to the guideline without a discussion. But notice that this is not a "procedural nomination", its just a nomination. Not adding the words "procedural nomination" doesn't change the fact that if there was no one willing to make an AfD nomination, there was clearly no need for a discussion, and so there was likewise no need to start without someone willing to make an AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am relisting it, because there was a consensus to do so at the DRV. If people at the DRV say "relist at AfD," there there clearly is a need for a discussion. Also, where is the claimed page where I inserted such a provision? I have searched Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions, Wikipedia:Deletion process, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy to no avail. The "relist" provision has been on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions ever since its inception in 2006. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L'CHAIM_Vodka. Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a WP:ATA for DRV closures, do you agree that this DRV closure would be listed there? As for the assertion of a consensus; where is the consensus for one admin to close without an explanation, allow no due process time to review the closing, and start a new AfD again without an explanation? The only editor to comment about a possible procedural nomination (me) said, "we don't need a procedural nomination that again fails to analyze the alternatives to deletion." Given that the editors chose to allow that perspective to go unchallenged, where is there consensus for a procedural nomination? Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If editors say there is a need for a discussion, but there is not an editor willing to prepare the community with WP:ATD analysis in an AfD nomination, then I think that what was said about the need for a discussion carries no significant weight and can be disregarded. Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question: Which guideline did I insert a "procedural nomination" provision into? All you did was link to another AfD in which I did the same thing, but that cannot remotely be construed as having "added something called 'the procedural nomination' to the guideline without a discussion." Additionally, your viewpoint is entirely unsupported by long-standing consensus. You do have a point, though, so bring it up on WT:DRV if you want to get rid of procedural nominations. As of now, however, we must follow the procedure as written. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references, among others, in the Times Of India, Deccan Herald and the The Hindu are in reliable sources. Taken together, the multiple RSes provide enough material for a start-class article, which is what the non-trivial, independently and reliably sourced, requirement of WP:GNG is. We also need to be aware of the FUTON bias. The subject is at a place where internet coverage is low, and her films are non-English. The amount of coverage we see in the online English press points to far more coverage in the local and offline reliable sources. How many films she has acted in is not a criterion; nor does being the daughter of an actress make her non-notable. Her age makes the WP:BLP issue more significant, but looking at the edit history of the article so far, that seems manageable. Churn and change (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm looking at the content in the sources and none of them are really worth including. TOI, Balcony beats, TOI are mere one para gossip style items. This TOI one is also a gossip style interview (and interviews are not independent anyway). Deccan Herald another one para gossip item. This Hindu article is the only full length news article reference and even here she is merely mentioned once (the article is not about her). We shouldn't be keeping articles merely because someone has been mentioned a couple of times in a newspaper, whether the paper in question is the Times of India or the New York Times. --regentspark (comment) 13:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines in WP:BASIC are clear: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The only bar is the mentions be non-trivial and I think that is met here. There is more here, and that newspaper Mathrubhumi is a credible local-language one. And you are completely ignoring the Futon bias issue (a lot of this stuff shows up many pages down in a Google search not because they lack credibility, but because they don't do SEO stuff, and often the core content is non-English). If something is in a reliable source, it is by definition not gossip. The name of the director, her sister's name, which grade she is in at high school, are all facts. Also, yes, I agree relisting doesn't seem productive; it is the same people in the DRV arguing the same issues a second time around. Churn and change (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think FUTON is an issue here. If she completes a film and is reviewed in reliable source, you'll find something online. She hasn't yet done that (and, because "the future is uncertain and the end is always near"Jim Morrison , may never do so). All we have here is a few mentions in newspapers which many people have and the possibility that she will be in films that are produced and then released. We should not be anticipating notability but that's what is going on here. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not bound by our WP:CRYSTAL rules. They have ended up creating notability by covering her assuming there is a chance she will be famous in the future. The coverage is not in depth, but neither is it trivial. It exists in multiple, independent, third-party sources, with enough facts present to support a start-class article. That meets WP:BASIC. Churn and change (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The TOI and other sources presented as establishing notability are trivial mentions at best. WP:BASIC may allow for the combination of less in-depth sources to establish notability, but I don't think this argument is entirely persuasive in this case. Even in combination, they do not amount to significant coverage, in my view. Having said all this, I allow for the possibility that there may be sources in other languages that I do not have the capacity to investigate, and if such sourcing exists (and it's reliable, significant and independent), I'll be in favor of keeping the article. --Batard0 (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her debut film Kadal. Though significant coverage is not present as editors have pointed out, we still do have sources from national newspapers, and more than just trivial coverage. So, since redirects are cheap, we can go with this alternative. The redirect can be undone once she releases her debut film, satisfying WP:NACTOR.
Weak keep: Yes, WP:BASIC is met, and the topic just passes notability. And no saying of how much more coverage she would get if she gets so much even when she hasn't completed one film. Secret of success (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple non-trivial mentions in national newspapers, as you mention, then WP:BASIC says it is a keep. There is no need to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR to the letter if WP:BASIC is done. Also, as per the FUTON bias, if a subject in a place with fewer online sources has borderline notability, we should lean toward a keep. Churn and change (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be that way. The definition of trivial is very subjective, and in my opinion, is restricted to a few passing mentions which do not give encyclopedic information. But significant is not the exact opposite of trivial, at present the only info we can verify from sources is about her yet-to-release films and some mentions about her early life. These wouldn't be sufficient to even create a stub article and plus, WP:NACTOR gets in the way (it is incorrect to say that other guidelines can be dismissed if basic is established, because basic demands the minimum). Hence, to make a compromise on both sides, I suggested a redirect. Secret of success (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That last statement is the disconnect. WP:BASIC is not a minimum; it is sufficient. It is not necessary to meet WP:ACTOR or any other guideline once WP:BASIC is met. The section says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published . . ." The additional criteria are "OR"s. As to the stub size of the article, one is allowed to add material from interviews to the article (though that can't be used to establish notability). Churn and change (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, sorry about that. Based on a better look, yes, the article does meet WP:BASIC and since it sufficient, I opt for a weak keep (weak because it lies on the borderline of notability and non-notability in terms of significant coverage). Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if online English sources provide borderline notability, then considering she is acting in non-English movies and in a place where offline reliable sources dominate, we should lean toward a keep to adjust for the FUTON bias. Churn and change (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability seems to be established by the refs available. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Batard0. No inherited notability from mother or sister; neither of the movies have even premiered yet. Perhaps userfy it so once one of the films premiers and generates some additional coverage, it can become a standalone stub. Go Phightins! 22:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose userification, since this objection is not based on actual analysis of the sources; nobody is claiming inherited notability, and premiering of movies is not a prerequisite for notability. Churn and change (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at alternate ways the subject may be notable because it doesn't pass WP:GNG; I am saying that once a movie premiers, there's a chance it'll gain enough coverage to warrant an article at that time. Go Phightins! 22:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC, which I believe the subject's coverage does pass, is sufficient and requires no additional criteria for support.Churn and change (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully disagree with you there. Go Phightins! 23:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with which part? That her coverage passes WP:BASIC, or that WP:BASIC is sufficient? If it is the first, I guess we have to leave it at that. If it is the second, I would like to know why you think so. Churn and change (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think the coverage passes WP:BASIC. The notability guideline is pretty clear that passing WP:BASIC is sufficient, so whether or not I agree with it is fairly irrelevant. Go Phightins! 23:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The coverage is merely social in nature. So and so has been signed by such and such for this film or that. When the film is made and commercially released (many don't get there), then we can discuss notability. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 1 November 2012 (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.