Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inayat Khan (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 based on strength of policy/guideline-based arguments to delete. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Khan (actor)

[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)

Another BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. Also, the ad hominem comment in the nominator's rationale is quite inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Could you provide evidence from WP:RS to demonstrate how the subject meets WP:N? My comment is relevant because there are concerns about problematic user behavior. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're directing me to WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Just read it, please. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, My previous comment may not have been clear. You mentioned the actor did various significant roles in notable productions but I haven't been able to confirm tha via RSt. So far, I've failed to find evidence in RS that this actor had various significant roles in notable productions as being claimed. The actor only had a lead role in Resham Gali Ki Husna but even that is not considered a significant work, given that the article was created by a UPE account. A Google search hasn't yielded any solid evidence to prove that Resham Gali Ki Husna was a significant work. The same issues apply to the other shows in which this actor played a part—they are not all significant work, and the actor doesn't have lead roles in them, only minor ones. If you can provide evidence to the contrary from RS, I would appreciate it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He mention how did he got into acting [1]. He said that dramas Dil Lagi and Muthi Bhar Mohabbat made him well known [2].(BeauSuzanne (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As a creator of this BLP, you're supposed to provide good sourcing which also meet WP:RS - Unfortunately, goodtimes.com.pk does not meet this criteria. Whereas the Express Tribune piece alone may not adequately demonstrate that subject's WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another vague WP:AfD when the nominator possess lack of knowledge of subject matter. The actor is notable as per WP:NACTOR, have acted in multiple blockbuster serials as lead as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.29.217 (talk • contribs)

WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Care to provide some sources? --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[3] and Daily Times ones, also Bol News provides reference about his personal life as well. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodtimes.com.pk is not a RS. Where's link to coverage in Daily Times? Bol News is not a RS either to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bol News is an independent journalism TV channel for which your WP:AfD subject Waqar Zaka have worked, how it's not WP:RS? And Daily Times reference is listed in the article. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT referring to the TV channel, but specifically the website of BOL News. The website publishes PROMO, paid content and CHURNALISM-styled stories without proper fact-checking, making it unreliable for BLPs, especially. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still I feel Daily Times source is WP:RS. Similarly sources from news channels media are WP:RS, there are already other paid media websites in Pakistan for CHURNALISM.182.182.29.217 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP has finally admitted that they have no awareness about WP:RS, which I interpret as having no experience with what WP:RS entails. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, I was unaware but after discussion at Draft talk:Gumn, I got the understanding. Don't fit in discussion from other context here. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

182.182.29.217, Just admit you're not familiar with WP:RS because at-least three of your recent drafts (Draft:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft:Gumn and Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) have been turned down by other reviewers for using non-RS to create articles on unwarranted subjects. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why you're disregarding comprehensive discussion Draft talk:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft talk:Gumn, Draft talk: Wonderland (Pakistani TV series)? They gave me an understanding of it that's why I have assessed article should be kept. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've understood WP:RS, why do you insist on keeping this BLP when it's still citing unreliable sources? Why haven't you provided coverage from RS to verify your claims? You're just vaguely named sources without providing specific links to coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling them unreliable sources, as per my assessment they're WP:RS. Since you've reviewed the article, can't you identify the sources by their websites? I find it quite rankling to provide sources again and again. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment is incorrect because, like I mentioned above, you seem to misunderstand WP:RS. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS before defending them. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per my opinion, your assesyis incorrect. You should give a benefit of doubt while reviewing articles with such WP:RS. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
IP blocked. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLPs require strong sourcing. Fails GNG and NBIO, NACTOR. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found, promo, interviews, listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources pretty marginal per WP:DEPTH per above delete arg, not to mention the sockish editing in support of keeping. Next time, bring this through AfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:09, 10 May 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.