Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Prakash Varrier

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I have disregarded accounts that were created purely for the purpose of "voting" here, and salted the title per advice below. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Prakash Varrier

[edit]
Priya Prakash Varrier (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:NACTOR: an actor with a single film that has not yet released. MT TrainDiscuss 09:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki, It is all for a WP:BLP1E though. I suspect she will be notable for WP:SUSTAINED merits in the future after the film's release (possibly after being in multiple films). But for now it is WP:TOOSOON. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am reading that crap source properly, it is saying she has become the most sourced in this particular week, not over time. It just illustrates the flash-in-the-pan thing - no lasting notability based on it. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Does not met any notability guideline one would care to name. Always good to hear from the subject's fans, though. Looks to me like the article does more to fan the flames of fandom than to build the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a fanclub. Nor is it instagram. Publicity surrounds a publicity boosting BLP1E. Hopefully her publicist can boost her career to the point where she does meet GNG. For now, just a flash in the pan. So TOOSOON, if ever. That boosterism needs to be done w/o Wikipeia's help. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot-- Wikipeida is no teh news. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt All the press coverage is for a single clip of an unreleased film and the subject does not currently pass WP:NACTOR or WP:SUSTAINED. If the article is deleted due to the current hype on this there is a chance that this will be recreated so I recommend salting this too. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 02:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt per all the delete votes above. Whenever she passes GNG, the article can be created again. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt i agree with usernamekiran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidushyant (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: None of the information is wrong, I guess the prime purpose of this place is to share information, none should judge the person, where she is good bad ugly famous infamous whether fans loves the person or hates whatever.. Those who are currently debating on these types of silly issues should refrain to the same. I strongly support to keep this article as its just proving some information about a person and some incident which has actually happened. No fictitious data is provided. 14.139.219.2 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)— 14.139.219.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Dbsseven (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clears GNG by a mile. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article..." Additionally a police complaint has been filed against her for hurting religious sentiments of Muslims, so there is a multi-dimensional notability.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs)
    • @Yogesh Khandke: She doesnt pass GNG, she is an example of WP:1E. The source you provided, states However, they have submitted only a written complaint and no FIR has been filed against anyone yet. In truth however, according to first post: Khan alleges that the lyrics of the song insult Prophet Muhammad when translated to English. He has maintained that those who find the lyrics hurtful, have nothing against its actress. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment-- WP:BLP1E has been wrongly cited here. I quote

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
She has become notable, she has a Verified badge on Instagram, available according to their policy only to "only some public figures, celebrities and brands..."[6] she has more followers (23 lakh) than established stars such as Anushka Shetty who has 20 lakh.[7] It isn't an event that has made her notable, such as a being perpetrator or victim of a crime, ( 1 and 3 in wp:BLP1E), also one doesn't need to be a soothsayer to foresee that she won't fade away, considering that her movie is to be released, on the flip side, there is no way to know for certain that she will remain a low-profile individual in the future as per ( 2 in wp:BLP1E). WP:TOOSOON similarly doesn't apply, this article isn't based on an achievement that hasn't yet materialised, such as being signed for a film wp:SUSTAINED, is like wp:BLP1E that I've discussed in detail above, recentism also relates to events such as hurricanes of temporary interest. WP:NACTOR is a strawman argument, no one claims she is a notable actor. She's a celebrity, the internet made her, I don't say so, multiple independent reliable sources say so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be reliable for one thing and not for another. No Indian news outlet is reliable for fancruft stuff - they are all slavish followers of publicist's tripe, they all copy off each other, they all engage in breathless prose (except, perhaps, The Hindu), and quite a few are happy to take money to print this type of thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't indulge in wp:OR or rant or should I say cant against India, Indian internet users India news media, also BBC too is sloshing in the mud by your own definition.[8] Provide evidence that her Instagram badge has been fixed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also save your breath for those who have been called "our cousins across the Atlantic..." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After a decade-long-editing career, if you are saying that a blue badge on Instagram equates to encyclopedic notability and provide links to GOP-websites to criticize foreign-media, you are either incompetent or you are plainly trolling. AGFing, I will assume the former.And, ....so there is a multi-dimensional notability. was a stunner.~ Winged BladesGodric 13:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a reflection of reliable sources, not a den of wp:OR enthusiasts, reliable sources discuss the fact of her receiving a verified badge. They have found it notable enough to comment on. I've not pulled this out of a hat. I'm not saying anything about anyone, I'm merely reproducing what wp:RS (or you say GOP official website isn't one) has to offer. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yogesh, you have a record here for pro-Hindu nationalist editing, including regularly being in the minority in discussion at WT:INB about all sorts of sourcing issues + having had editing restrictions in place. I suggest that you back off. Stirring up up like you did, with a dedicated Controversy section in a BLP, based on someone filing a FIR, is something you know you should not do but, of course, it suits the agenda, doesn't it? I have commented further at the article talk. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As usual complete rubbish, including regarding wp:INB a place i've not been in ages, this is a AfD, bring up facts regarding the AfDs I voted and how they went. Also don't go all over the place with content arguments, keep them on the article talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yogesh Khandke, Sitush, and Winged Blades of Godric: We are getting off the subject here. There are a tons of pornstars on twitter, instagram, and facebook that have verified accounts; but they do not pass the notability criteria. "One event" is vague title to cover a few different scenarios. We shouldnt take everything to the word. Till now, whatever has happened with Varrier boiles down to only one reason, no different/multiple reasons. man! closing this discussion would be a feat in itself. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't the place to soapbox against one's favourite peeve, for some it is India or Hindus, for you it seems to be porn-stars. There are clear guidelines for acceptability of a particular subject as an article, they aren't related to whether the subject is a porn-star or an Indian or a Hindu. My understanding of guidelines is that Varrier passes them. Multiple reliable sources mention her verified Instagram account and the number of her followers, so I mentioned it, I hope you understand the difference, which isn't too subtle. A Wikipedia article is to be a balanced reflection of what reliable sources. Read the delete votes, their problem is about Indian sources, or about what I read implies as sex-starved Indians who made her a celebrity, or that a wink can't be reason for an article, there is a quixotic remark about Hindu nationalist conspiracy in mentioning the FIR regarding insult to Mohammad, here. We are not here to sit on judgement, Wikipedia is edited by anonymous editors, it is assumed that they have no expertise, not even in Freudian psychoanalysis, other than that of finding, choosing and honestly representing information from good sources, in a balanced manner. Unfortunately the debate from one side reeks of should I say incompetence in understanding Wikipedia esp. wp:OR, more sad because opinions of "seniors" is claimed to have more weight. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable internet personality and clearly a public figure with numerous news articles, Treading on Google, Facebook, Instagram and IMDB. Wikipedia has a lot articles about internet sensation and this girl is now international level sensation which is notable for a Wiki page. Che12Guevara 18:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che12Guevara (talk • contribs)
Chrissymad Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beloved Kashmiriyat filed, if you have anything to help it would be appreciated. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CU bounced, SPI closed as unlikely. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not a policy-based vote. If there are socks in this discussion, their votes should be struck. Once the film is released, it will be borderline for inclusion. If having an article about this person for a month before this film comes out will bring editors interested in Indian culture to the project, I encourage it. There are a massive number of articles about other people in this field that need improvements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to rally the troops for any given subject. She's either notable at the time of this discussion or not and so far, there is literally nothing to indicate this person meets any inclusion criteria. It can be reassessed when and if she receives the necessary coverage but saying that "it will bring editors interested in xyz" to the project is a ridiculous reason to keep an article that doesn't meet inclusion criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are literally saying to violate WP:CRYSTAL. She isnt notable now. And if she becomes notable in the future, then the article can be created without any opposition. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the opposite of violating WP:CRYSTAL. She is not notable now and we should not keep an article because she might be in the future. If she becomes notable, then by all means, the article should be recreated but until that time, well... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrissymad: I apologise for the confusion. I was referring to power~enwiki's statement in my previous comment. You n me are saying the same thing. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is a geniune Artist. The references links are reliable and the person has millions of fanbase on instagram and trending on social networking sites. I saw many comments of different peoples regarding her movie. Yes it is not released yet but the music video of the movie is already released from which we can know she is notable. So, i personally suggest to keep the page. SeytX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — SeytX (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Gaurav456 (talk • contribs). – Struck above !vote from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 15:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and other actors dont actually act, but act to act and not really act?; and hence are not genuine artists? But wouldnt that make such "fake" actors even better than the actors who just act, and not act to act? apologies. but I couldnt help myself from making a joke.—usernamekiran(talk) 23:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really much of an argument to keep the article. Since 1) what reliable sources are there stating she is an artist? 2) a big social media fan base, without reliable sourcing, does not notability make 3) social media comments are not reliable sourcing 4) the music video falls into WP:BLP1E territory 5) an unreleased movie falls afoul of one of the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Blackmane (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oru Adaar Love: The subject has received some attention for her debut film and its viral trailer but this doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. This is WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E case. Deleting it outright isn't a good option, considering the kind of attention the subject has gained (On 13 February, her article received 321,000 views). The reason for her popularity presently is the film trailer and this information can be adequately covered in Oru Adaar Love's article. A redirect would be sufficient for now and probably semi-protect it. If, in the future, the subject gains recognition for her work as an actor, we can expand her page. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP the article. a sensation now on internet and will remain so atleast for another few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.210.189 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — 183.82.210.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Seriously? This is exactly what BLP1E is intended to prevent. Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until the film is released in June, the mass following on social media and three shortfilms are the only assets in her favour. Doesnot deserve a page. A person from the same place whose video went viral few months back also deserved a page if this was the condition. This page can be expanded by June when the film is released Jibinmathews (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Subject has now vast coverage on mainstream media.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
امین اکبر Do you have sources to support that? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nothing but passing news reports. Please come back when you have secondary coverage (which, among other things, demands that the source date from a time period well separated from the incidents being described) published by reliable sources. By the way, nominator should note that this is an actress, not an actor. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because there was no Actressess and filmmakers del-sort group? But trust me, I'm a feminist! :) MT TrainDiscuss 04:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I never look at the deletion sorting; I was responding to an actor with a single film. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, closing admin I just noticed the "redirect to movie" vote up above. I'm not sure how much we ought to be redirecting based on potential flash-in-the-pan names, but I'd definitely prefer redirecting to keeping. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All prominent media sources go no more deeper about her than a 10 second wink. That's what BLP1E is there for. MT TrainDiscuss 14:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and fully protect (short of outright deletion). This is a prime case of BLP1E. Prior to the trailer this actress was not notable or had enough coverage to justify inclusion into Wikipedia. The trailer became viral because of the wink. This makes the case a "Biography of a Living Person notable for One Event" (BLP1E). Arguing Instagram verified or Instagram followers is a WP:BIG argument. Comparisons of this actress to other actresses is a WP:WAX argument. In total the keep arguments are unsupported by policy, whereas the Delete/Merge/Redirect arguments are. I advocate for post closure full protection on whatever outcome comes from this discussion as the viral nature suggests that the page will be created again in short order to try and override the consensus derived here. Hasteur (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nothing special about this girl. Sadsadas (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not justified.--Masum-al-Hasan 03:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masum-al-hasan (talk • contribs)
Will you care to elaborate on what you mean by "Notability is not justified" please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should not be deleted. she has emerged as a big sensation in india with even ndtv and cnn ibn news 18 calling her nation's crush. her popularity may be temporary but such fads and sensations of this magnitude need to be in wikipedia.[9] On Feb 12, the people who searched for Katrina Kaif, 1 of India's top star is 10,000 and people who searched for Priya is 140,000.. How can you suggest to delete.. shall i remove the deletion tag ?? pls discuss.[10] Akshayacropolis (vote on talk page by an newcomer, whose arguments though are very sound, esp. that such events are milestones that need to be recorded. I have taken the liberty of pasting it here.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this deleted, it should be salted or made a protected redirect. Re-creation is otherwise inevitable. Based on [11] (I would not be able to do any other films until August) I doubt there will be an immediate need to revisit this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 19 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Priya_Prakash_Varrier&oldid=1138255446"