Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vriddhi Vishal (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 speedy delete‎ per G5. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vriddhi Vishal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

My G4 nomination yesterday was correctly declined, as a few additions have been made since the last deletion. Tried another WP:BEFORE search, using the spellings விருத்தி விஷால் and വൃദ്ധി വിശാൽ (please correct as necessary), and as with the previous nomination, there's no significant, independent coverage of her career to show how she passes WP:NACTOR or GNG yet. The new additions are both minor film roles, plus an unspecified role in a film currently still in post-production. She was also one of a group of children to appear in a promo video. But again, none of these additions has received significant, independent coverage from multiple reliable sources, only the sort of run-of-the-mill staff-writer coverage you'd expect for an adorable kid who's appeared in some films. Uncle Spock (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Spock (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : This AFD nominator placed a G4 deletion tag in this page yesterday and it was removed by an ADMIN, and this nominator is saying lightly that the G4 nomination was correctly declined ??? So why on earth has he placed the G4 tag at first place ??? Now after the G4 is declined he placed the AFD tag, its WP:HARASS . Wikipedia is for constructive edits and not for doing destructive edits. This AFD is unwanted and proves that the nominator who created his account on 9th april 2023 ie; 13 days before and has been editing in rocket speed is here in wikipedia for destructive edits rather than constructive edits.

Now proving why it pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG , The subject Vriddhi Vishal is a child actress, model, social influencer etc. Previously her page was deleted in March 2022 when she only acted in one movie and had very less news source about her. Now as of April 2023 she has acted in over 5 movies in prominent character roles, in one major television serial in prominent character role, she has been cheif guest in couple of prominent television shows. Moreover she was selected as the most popular child artist on Malayalam TV by ETimes TV etc. These all proves that she passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG easily with total 14 references out of which most of them are featured and secondary and independent news sources. Christopheronthemove (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Striking sock. Greyjoy^talk 16:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith rather than make baseless accusations. I am the admin who declined Uncle Spock's CSD nomination: This was on technical grounds, as CSD:G4 can often be difficult to interpret. As it happens, I personally agreed with the G4 nom (i.e., I think it should have been deleted immediately); however, current guidelines would not support it.

Uncle Spock was perfectly qualified to nominate this article for deletion after the CSD was declined. It does not matter how long they have contributed, or how often they edit. By your logic we should disallow any articles/contributions from accounts less than <X TIME> old (which would likely include yours). But this is not how Wikipedia works, nor should it be.

An uncharitable person might point out that you have identified yourself as a journalist, and as most (all?) of your sources are promotional 'fluff' from news websites, there could be the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. But that would be unkind, do you not agree? There has been no harassment, and as they stand here, our procedures are playing out as they should. --Hadal (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom~~, or draftify~~. Once you strip away the fluff, like IG followers and 'virality', there isn't much left. It's possible this child actor might become more notable upon the release of her upcoming film, yet we don't even know how "prominent" a role this will be. In any case, recommend title be salted. --Hadal (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of significant roles in movies and television series. She also does not meet GNG. There is no point of moving to draftspace either. The tone used in the article raises strong COI/UPE concerns. For example; She is also known for her photoshoots and dance videos which has got millions of views. She also has over 1.5 Million followers in Instagram. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the prior AFD, there are no significant roles this person has had. Views on instagram don't count for notability. SALT as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT: Fails WP:NACTOR and this article is somewhere between fancruft or promotionalism. Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting in passing that Justlettersandnumbers WP:G5'd the thing the creator is sock blocked,-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deepfriedokra. I thought it best to leave this open so that it can reach its inevitable conclusion, but am not sure that that is standard practice in this situation. If not, I'm sure someone will close it early. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet any inclusion criteria you could name. An uncharitable person might add, "no matter how much someone paid."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:01, 24 April 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.