Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shaikh: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:13, 31 October 2024 edit103.82.120.217 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:15, 31 October 2024 edit undoSaqib (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users61,574 edits →Fahad Shaikh: Editing comment Next edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	*:No one, at least among the two other !voters, and that includes myself, has made {{tq\|any argument on what Misplaced Pages ''says about'' subject}} (emphasis mine) (not sure whose "{{tq\|ridiculous}}" argument based on {{tq\|cit the pedia}} you have in mind, but on this page, there's none that I can see; the <u>existence</u> of pages about certain productions is only mentioned as an indication that the said productions are probably considered notable and while I agree that factor alone is not enough, the absence of a page is also, therefore, not enough to prove any given production is not notable. But a WP page is, in certain cases, the easiest ''starting point'' to check given roles are main/lead: the verification is made "via" (consider I use capital letters and bold, and in big :D) the articles (and the sources they contain); it is not based on what the article "says"; even so-so sources (cited or simply available online) can be used for verification of that, even intro of interviews (for example: the mention "‘Jalan’ star" in https://dailytimes.com.pk/696033/jalan-star-fahad-sheikh-says-fahad-mustafa-is-his-mentor/ (certainly not a great source and certainly not sufficient to demonstrate notability) allows to verify the role is not minor. Again, these sources are not direct proof of notability but help verify the roles are "significant", which is what the applicable specific guideline requires. Thank you for your concern. -]] 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)		*:No one, at least among the two other !voters, and that includes myself, has made {{tq\|any argument on what Misplaced Pages ''says about'' subject}} (emphasis mine) (not sure whose "{{tq\|ridiculous}}" argument based on {{tq\|cit the pedia}} you have in mind, but on this page, there's none that I can see; the <u>existence</u> of pages about certain productions is only mentioned as an indication that the said productions are probably considered notable and while I agree that factor alone is not enough, the absence of a page is also, therefore, not enough to prove any given production is not notable. But a WP page is, in certain cases, the easiest ''starting point'' to check given roles are main/lead: the verification is made "via" (consider I use capital letters and bold, and in big :D) the articles (and the sources they contain); it is not based on what the article "says"; even so-so sources (cited or simply available online) can be used for verification of that, even intro of interviews (for example: the mention "‘Jalan’ star" in https://dailytimes.com.pk/696033/jalan-star-fahad-sheikh-says-fahad-mustafa-is-his-mentor/ (certainly not a great source and certainly not sufficient to demonstrate notability) allows to verify the role is not minor. Again, these sources are not direct proof of notability but help verify the roles are "significant", which is what the applicable specific guideline requires. Thank you for your concern. -]] 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::Nobody is refuting my central argument: {{tq\|The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject.}} We have lots of admittedly bad sources, I'll agree. We have ''none'' which meet my standard for IRS directly detailing. None. On a BLP. ALSO an autobiography. This isn't close. Delete. ] (]) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)		*::Nobody is refuting my central argument: {{tq\|The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject.}} We have lots of admittedly bad sources, I'll agree. We have ''none'' which meet my standard for IRS directly detailing. None. On a BLP. ALSO an autobiography. This isn't close. Delete. ] (]) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
	*::], You should have ] (and there are more examples like this) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR.<span id="Saqib:1730383648375:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Fahad_Shaikh" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] I ]) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)</span>		*::], You should have ] (and there are more examples like this such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR.<span id="Saqib:1730383648375:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Fahad_Shaikh" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] I ]) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
	*:::Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this imv unnecessary (''I''<nowiki/>'m being polite) ad hominem remark. I won't even bother commenting on its inaccuracy myself. -]] 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)		*:::Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this imv unnecessary (''I''<nowiki/>'m being polite) ad hominem remark. I won't even bother commenting on its inaccuracy myself. -]] 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''' per nom. References in Brecorder are not independent as Aaj TV is part of the group . ] (]) 14:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' per nom. References in Brecorder are not independent as Aaj TV is part of the group . ] (]) 14:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:15, 31 October 2024

Fahad Shaikh

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP was created by Fadushake (talk · contribs) - the subject themselves, as shown in the edit summary. I did a quick G'search and found nothing substantial to establish GNG, so I’m nom it for deletion. The subject has had roles in a few TV series, but that doesn’t guarantee their standalone BLP on Misplaced Pages. Anyone arguing that they meet NACTOR should keep this in mind when voting. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: He does seem to meet WP:NACTOR fairly with multiple significant roles (including more than 10 lead roles ) in notable productions. And that is verifiable through various sources on the page (even if some sources are not great) or via the articles about the productions when they exist (note that the absence of a page for any given production is not necessarily the sign of non-notability (nor of notability, clearly)) Also note that various sources and lead section used Sheikh (not Shaikh) for his name (example: https://theazb.com/fahad-sheikh-to-star-in-pakistans-first-ever-digital-feature-film/ https://www.mangobaaz.com/23-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-actor-fahad-sheikh/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Mushy Yank, It seems your vote was based on WP:OR, which I have removed. You need to provide evidence of their lead roles, as I don’t see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  Really? :D.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: In the list mentioned in the Television section, 11 of his dramas are notable enough to have a separate Wiki Page. In many, he is in the lead role. Still not met NACTOR?--Gul Butt (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC) — Gul Butt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
We can cleanup page or put COI tag, reason everyone knows. Gul Butt (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Gul Butt, Your vote resembles WP:ATA. You should explain how they meet NACTOR. I've removed the WP:OR, which claims the subject has had lead roles. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:ATA is an extremely long essay and should not be opposed to a !vote without further precision. Most of all, Gul Butt very very very very explicitly explained how and why the guideline is met in their opinion. As for your removal of material from the page during an AfD, I would suggest you refrain from doing so and rather add a tag to the content you deem unsourced. Thank you. Aside: do you honestly doubt that his roles are lead roles??? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Mushy Yank, You all are voting to keep this BLP based on WP:OR and I don't need your permission to remove WP:OR from a BLP, even if the BLP is at AFD. You should provide evidence of how the actor meets NACTOR instead of relying on WP:OR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
’You all?’ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not satisfied with presented sources (they are churnalism, in my view), and my reasonable before finds nothing which meets RS. Any argument on what Misplaced Pages says about a subject is ridiculous, since we're not allowed to cite the pedia here. The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. Given this is a BLP and a self-promotional autobiography to boot, I can't keep. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
No one, at least among the two other !voters, and that includes myself, has made any argument on what Misplaced Pages says about subject (emphasis mine) (not sure whose "ridiculous" argument based on cit the pedia you have in mind, but on this page, there's none that I can see; the existence of pages about certain productions is only mentioned as an indication that the said productions are probably considered notable and while I agree that factor alone is not enough, the absence of a page is also, therefore, not enough to prove any given production is not notable. But a WP page is, in certain cases, the easiest starting point to check given roles are main/lead: the verification is made "via" (consider I use capital letters and bold, and in big :D) the articles (and the sources they contain); it is not based on what the article "says"; even so-so sources (cited or simply available online) can be used for verification of that, even intro of interviews (for example: the mention "‘Jalan’ star" in https://dailytimes.com.pk/696033/jalan-star-fahad-sheikh-says-fahad-mustafa-is-his-mentor/ (certainly not a great source and certainly not sufficient to demonstrate notability) allows to verify the role is not minor. Again, these sources are not direct proof of notability but help verify the roles are "significant", which is what the applicable specific guideline requires. Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Nobody is refuting my central argument: The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. We have lots of admittedly bad sources, I'll agree. We have none which meet my standard for IRS directly detailing. None. On a BLP. ALSO an autobiography. This isn't close. Delete. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Mushy Yank, You should have realized by now (and there are more examples like this such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this imv unnecessary (I'm being polite) ad hominem remark. I won't even bother commenting on its inaccuracy myself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. References in Brecorder are not independent as Aaj TV is part of the group . 103.82.120.217 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: