Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Ansari (actor)

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. Sandstein 08:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ansari (actor)

Ali Ansari (actor) (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines ACTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. A quick Google search reveals several namesakes. Saqib (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR with many prominent roles in nationally broadcast television series such as Andaaz-e-Sitam and Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab; also has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Express Tribune. Also this nomination is in breach of WP:BEFORE as a quick google search is insufficient Atlantic306 (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No major role in Andaaz-e-Sitam. This puffery piece in the Express Tribune is not enough to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article passes WP:NACTOR and has reliable sources. Meet with wikipedia guidelines WP:PERSON.Lillyput455 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The notability test for an actor is not passed just because roles are listed — it's passed by the depth of reliable source coverage he did or didn't receive for having roles. But that's not what the sources here are doing: #4 and #5 are primary sources that do not assist notability, #3 tangentially verifies the existence of a show while completely failing to even mention his name at all in conjunction with it, and #1 is a Q&A interview with his sister in which he gets a glancing namecheck, not coverage about him. The only source here which is about him is #2, but that's not enough sourcing to clinch a GNG pass all by itself if the rest of the sources around it are all worthless — and even it isn't covering him in the context of his acting, but just in the context of being sexy to look at. Which he sure is, but that's not an article-clinching notability claim for an actor in and of itself (hotties can still fail NACTOR and ugly people can still pass it.) So no, none of this is good enough sourcing to get him over a notability criterion that requires good sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This actor does not establish notability, not even per WP:NACTOR some are describing. Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab does not seem like a notable show due to lack of coverage from reliable sources, so that role is out. The Andaaz-e-Sitam role was not significant as well, so that leaves him with no notable roles hence failing WP:NACTOR. Being a Hottie of Week does not establish notability, and certainly is not a reliable secondary source. The others sources are barely covering the subject or are wrongly referring to it, as Bearcat (talk) had already said. Fails WP:GNG too. Pretty sad this could very well end in a no consenus AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. Sorry to say, but have gone through the article? It's about an actor, not an actress. So, I would definitely say He instead of She Knightrises10 talk 11:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through the article, my bad for doing a typo on my post (morning time and after I looked at the article related to his sister seems to have confused me), will fix it as soon as possible. Everything I said still stands, not notable in my eyes. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep as major roles make the actor pass WP:NACTOR. Has coverage in news sources as well. Knightrises10 talk 11:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE This user has been blocked for socking[reply]

where is news coverage? Care to cite some ? --Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user has been blocked for socking. --Saqib (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

going to arbcom Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, an actor doesn't pass NACTOR just because the article lists roles — an actor passes NACTOR when there's substantive reliable source coverage about his having of roles, such as reviews singling his performance out for dedicated attention, articles about him as their core subject, and/or evidence of award nominations or wins. Simply being able to list a bunch of roles without adequate sourcing for them is not an NACTOR pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Bearcat's excellent reasoning. We need substantive coverage to establish they meet WP:NACTOR and/or WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2018 (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.