Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apoorva (actress)


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Apoorva (actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk |c|em ) 11:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 11:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Does not satisfy notability guides. Eagleash (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Clause 3. Apart from being a mentioned in sources as "popular Telugu Actress", and "Established Character artist". With 25 Telugu movies She was also covered significantly for her protests related to the Me Too movement against sexual exploitation in the Telugu industry. The protests were successful in getting the implementation of protective measures., so I claim notability per WP:SIGCOV -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This activism passes the WP:NACTOR Clause 3 which says Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry DBigXray, but as per the sources you provided this looks like a low-profile individual to me who was in the news only for the single event and there is no evidence to support her role in the films listed in the article. GSS (talk |c|em ) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * beat me to it... I would agree that the links posted above are not really much more than passing mentions in articles basically about other people. Resigning from an organisation and being photographed alongside other actresses hardly makes her an activist and the section added to the article headed activism might be considered WP:UNDUE. Eagleash 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi popular WP:Mainstream Media sites like Indian Express (link above) calls her as Popular Telugu actress and "Established Character artist". The sources for a Telugu actress notability will mostly be expected to be found in Telugu language, but When Mainstream English sources, credit her as a notable Telugu actor then it should not be shot down as trivial but rather acknowledged.
 * Secondly her participation in the Sexual exploitation movement was notable (although it was started by a less renowned actor SriReddy, who was promptly banned by MAA film body to stifle dissent, when Apoorva, an "established character artist" openly came in her support and resigned, more artists joined in and it became a major protest movement with widespread coverage in all the languages of the national media. After Apoorva joined in The wire quotes Within a week, this insurrection sparked off a huge public discussion about the sexual exploitation in the Telugu film industry – probably the first time in the history of Indian film industry. Support by women’s groups and some Telugu news channels also proved crucial in turning Reddy’s desperate and isolated protest into a media event, one that could no longer be ignored.
 * The protests led to involvement of National Human Rights Commission of India and led to set up of framework with lasting impact on Telugu industry. This activism passes the WP:NACTOR Clause 3 which says ''Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
 * The movie just by itself may not be enough but all these reasons in combination makes her notable and has made me to support a Keep vote. User:GSSEagleash hope you will agree. regards-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for improving my artical DBigXray Iamheentity (talk)


 * Delete - This doesn't convince me about notability. Notability stands on its own merits and we shouldn't be asked to add little bits of sub-notability to try and add up to one whole notability. It just doesn't work like that.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Velella, The subject is notable enough for the significant coverage and the subsequent victory of her activism. That she is a popular actress further strengthens her notability. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree. Had I agreed with that argument I would not have written as I did.  Velella  Velella Talk 18:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete--Let's go for a dissection of sources:--
 * This is mere trivial coverage about the subject.All that she did was to be one of the members of MAA to protest against sexual harassment in the industry and the news article devotes a single line to her, (which is a repetition of the head-line).The sole reason that she was mentioned in the headline was for her usage of a hooky phrase.
 * Contributes nearly-nothing to notability.
 * IMDB is not a reliable source.It neither not distinguish between mainstream films and B-grade films nor does it provide any clue as to the significance of the role in the film.
 * No notability from here.
 * This devotes some lines to the subject.
 * As I said at a RSN thread, the source does not distinguish between factual reporting, commentary and opinion-pieces.This is an op-ed, as clear as it can be and such adjectives and showering of epithets fail to contribute any to notability.
 * The sole source which is reliable and devotes a trivial line to the subject as one who is a popular character artiste.
 * One source do not make-th any notability.


 * Overall, it can be equivalently argued that this is a BLP1E scenario, when she seems to have got all the coverage (which is basically negligible) for her role as a co-participant in the MAA protest against sexual harassment.


 * Overall, she fails our notability guidelines by quite a margin. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails as per GNG as of now. Could be kept if 2 or 3 solid sources talked about her in depth. Dial911 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:NACTOR or at least, GNG. Rest I would agree with ,Knightrises10 (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * passes WP:NACTOR? can you please provide some reliable soruce that support her role in the films listed in the article? Thank you. GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.