Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivraj

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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shivraj

Shivraj (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Hasn’t progressed passed the one sentence simply stating his profession since the articles July inception. Rusted AutoParts 01:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only information in this single-sentence article is a note that Shivraj was an Indian actor and the note about when he died, followed by a list of films he was in. Information in the article could be merged with an article on one of these films. Vorbee (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema mentions him 6 times. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Here's his obituary in The Hindu[1]. Pburka (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t provide anything to support passing WP:GNG. That’s the only source on the article, which I pointed out in my own rationale. Rusted AutoParts 01:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that a prestigious paper like The Hindu published his obituary is prima facie evidence of notability. Pburka (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who had obituaries published by The Hindu that I added to the deaths list fail to gain articles after a month and thus get removed. Having an obituary in a notable publishment doesn’t equate notability. Rusted AutoParts 01:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hindu calls him "one of the most recognisable faces in the Hindi cinema of the 1950s and the 60s". Given the era, he's likely to have additional coverage in off-line sources. Have you attempted a search of newspaper archives and books? Pburka (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Actor lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. One obituary does not establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep feature length obituaries in papers of record are enough to make an individual notable and proof of passing the GNG. The only way the Hindu could have compiled that obit was is there was significant coverage in other reliable sourcing, making it proof of meeting our notability standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn’t disagree more. Sites like New York Times, The Guardian, in this case The Hindu, can publish obituaries for individuals who never obtain Wikipedia articles. Sure can be because no one got around to writing one up, but most of the time it’s because there’s not much of worth to include. If there was a wealth of information to include about Shivraj here it should’ve or would’ve been included upon article inception. Rusted AutoParts 02:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An obituary in the NYT is considered de facto proof of notability on the English Wikipedia. I think there are obvious reasons why this should also apply to other papers of record in major countries: they have similar vetting, prestige, and editorial integrity of the times, and its also clear that they would only be able to compile the obit based on other published information: they aren't written by the families. Not to mention the extreme systemic bias that would exist for us to treat a North American paper of record as establishing notability but to say it is not the case for a paper of record in one of the largest English-speaking countries in the world that simply happens to be in Asia? TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That’s Just flagrantly incorrect. Many entries posted to Deaths in 2017 that were redlink a We’re oosted with a NYT source and by months end never gained an article on Wikipedia. My point is that being written about in any worldwide newspaper or site doesn’t automatically mean the person written about is notable enough to sustain an article here. Rusted AutoParts 04:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have many redlinked biographies from 2017 deaths that are notable and need articles written on them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they meet GNG. My point still stands that I believe having an obituary written by an outlet doesn’t automatically mean they pass GNG. Rusted AutoParts 04:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does mean they automatically pas WP:ANYBIO #2. It also is highly indicative that they are extremely likely to pass the GNG if one had access to the sourcing the authors had when they wrote the summary of the individual's life. The notability guideline makes it clear that when evidence is presented that sourcing likely exists, this is enough. See WP:NPOSSIBLE. We have an obit in a paper of record written by their staff reporters. That is more than enough to pass ANYBIO #2 and shows an extreme likelihood of being able to pass the GNG per NPOSSIBLE. That alone is enough, but given that Xx236 was also able to find sourcing in the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema (which I saw in Google Books as well), we have a clearly notable biography here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete totally fails GNG. Only one of the sources is reliable, that requires multiple reliable sources. IMDb seeks to cover everything, Wikipedia only covers actors of significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In my web search meets the WP:GNG. If an article is short, please tag it accordingly. gidonb (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- there's sufficient indication of notability as per User:Tony Ballioni and User:Gidonb, and nom's argument that the article should be deleted just because it's still a stub is wrong IMO. Eustachiusz (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not wrong for thinking an article that’s only thing to say about the subject is that they were an actor isn’t notable. If he were there’d be a lot more added to the article. Rusted AutoParts 01:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong to use the confrontational word "wrong" and withdraw it. But there is no time limit for developing an article, and when as here the likely sources are undigitised newspapers existing only in India it will probably stay a one-liner - with a substantial filmography - for a very long time. I see no problem with that, and don't understand why anyone else would, since space is not an issue. Eustachiusz (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article sat bare for five months. That’s why I figured there wasn’t anything else to add after that point if no one including the article creator were adding anything for five months. Rusted AutoParts 19:06, 28 November 2017 (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.