Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Dance

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Dance. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Dance|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Dance. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

AFDs

Didem (belly dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails wp:np, sources are scarce, and I believe it should be deleted. فيصل (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiten Dharpure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dharpure has achieved a couple of obscure records recognized by the "India Book of Records" and the "Worldwide Book of Records", neither publication notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Given the number of newspaper clippings posted by the article's author at Commons (now mostly nominated for deletion as copyright violations), it is likely that this is an autobiography. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability and blatantly COI. Procyon117 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this on Instagram of Sakal News, liked by 7,647 people. [8] WikiDan404 (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is Instagram an unreliable source, but the amount of people who liked it is completely meaningless here. Procyon117 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respected Editor, That's Right. Actually I found this in his account on Facebook that he was felicitated twice by Hon'ble Union Minister of Road and Transport, Nitin Gadkari for his achievement that why I have added that.[9][10] The Editor committee (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Note to Closer. WikiDan404 account created 3 hours ago and Wikitopeople account created 22 hours ago have made no contribution to any other AFD. RangersRus (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Editor @WikiDan61, Thanks for your review. I respect and follow the Wikipedia Rules and Policies, if it seems to be not eligible, so no problem. It's my pleasure that you worked for it. The Editor committee (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Note to Closer. Unknewed another new account created few hours ago and have made no contribution to any other AFD. RangersRus (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not delete It should not be deleted as everything is true with no false Information as given with Citations and has notability. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Wikicontriiiiibute (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Niharika Lyra Dutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issue Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.
9t5 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, I've done a source assessment. — 48JCL 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep- I disagree strongly disagree with 48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is plainly outrageously untrue.
9t5 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, @9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times.
[1] -- From WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability.
[2] -- From WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability.
[3] -- Another interview.
[4] -- IMDb, not reliable. Per WP:IMDb
[5] -- Another interview.
[6] -- Another interview.
[7] -- Passing mention.
[8] -- Passing mention. — 48JCL 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?
9t5 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
48JCL Then tag the article with {{verify}}? This is a ridiculous use of AfD. 9t5 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.
I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of EreborThe Book of Mazarbul 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of EreborThe Book of Mazarbul 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than 48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with 48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project. 9t5 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    9t5 and Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. — 48JCL 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of EreborThe Book of Mazarbul 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It not be deleted. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]