Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryan Khan (actor) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I don't love the UPE aspect here, but as the argument for deletion rests on the history, rather than the present state of the article and the state of the sourcing, I don't see how another conclusion is possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Aryan Khan (actor)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article was written by a globally locked account from a large UPE spam sockfarm. No substantive edits by anyone else, so would be eligible for WP:G5, but it survived a previous AfD discussion (only just), with two of the keep !voters noting that it needs a rewrite. In situations like this I think it is better to delete the spam version per WP:TNT and let someone who is acting in good faith recreate the article if and when they want to. Pinging the folk who !voted in the last discussion:, , , , , , , and closing admin. Girth Summit  (blether) 11:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. delete per WP:5P4, which this type of WP:UPE is against the spirit of.
 * (One minor note that doesn't affect this discussion, I have that setting turned on that strikes blocked en Wikipedia account names, but I guess it doesn't seem to cross out globally blocked accounts. Does anyone know if I can do anything about that?) &mdash;siro&chi;o 11:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I run the following script: User:GeneralNotability/mark-locked.js. Globally locked accounts appear as greyed out, rather than struck through (and if they are blocked and locked, they get greyed out and stuck through). Girth Summit  (blether)  12:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have made some changes, particularly to clean up the citations in the article and to remove puffery and improperly sourced content; does this address your TNT/spam concerns? If that's resolved, are there any additional reasons deletion would be necessary? Thanks for your time. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 11:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo @Girth Summit Thoughts? :) Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 12:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd welcome some clean-up of the article, but since the notability question seemed to be finely balanced in the last discussion I think it would be worth coming to a firm conclusion about that now that everyone is aware of the context. I'll say one thing: one trick that some UPE spammers like to pull is to write negatively slanted articles about people, and then blackmail them into paying them to get the article 'fixed'. I don't know if that is the case here, but I note that the largest section in the article is entitled '2021 Controversy' (improperly capitalised, naturally), in which he was arrested then cleared of all charges. Is that WP:DUE, I wonder? Was it put in there by spammers hoping to get payment to remove/rewrite it later? Is anyone else going to be watching the article to check? I'm just saying that low-notability BLPs written by spammers are a major attack vector. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Re. notability, I‘ll do a source assessment a bit later.
 * I wasn‘t aware of the UPE blackmail scam you describe. It is weird that the article omitted both Khan‘s innocence („cleared of all charges“) and the fact that the entire investigation may have been a set-up. Certainly concerning. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 12:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments: I just went through the sources in the article in order until 22, then picked a few others to evaluate here as well. I think this is sufficient for making my case for keeping, see below. Table by Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 13:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we disregard the coverage that's just of the event (the drug case), there's probably still enough here for WP:BASIC. WP:NACTOR is also met with the roles in Incredibles and The Lion King. Regarding WP:BLP1E, condition 1 is not met (reliable sources have covered Khan outside the event), and neither is condition 2 Khan is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, so coverage of Khan in the context of the event contributes to notability. Remember that WP:BASIC allows us to combine non-SIGCOV coverage from multiple sources to establish notability, even though that may not even be necessary here. WP:BIO1E indicates that separate articles on both him and the event are probably appropriate, so I wouldn't oppose a split. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 13:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Will do a deeper look later, but wanted to point out that the Lion King and Incredible roles are both dubbing. I question if that meets the NACTOR significant role criteria.  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I assumed it does, at least for such a widely-distributed dub (there are over half a billion native speakers of Hindi). If it doesn‘t, the NACTOR threshold may not be fulfilled, but per WP:BASIC: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below, and we have enough for BASIC. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 19:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding dubbing, given how community consensus has explicitly moved various forms of acting/entertainment into the the NACTOR criteria over the years, I believe voice acting for the purposes of dubbing should fall in to that bucket, absent a clear consensus in the other direction.
 * As for significant, specifically, I think that needs to be a case-by-case thing. Various forms of acting themselves come in so many flavors, I think us as editors picking and choosing which types of acting/entertainment can be considered significant would be a violation of NPOV. As such, as with every other form of acting/entertaining, we need to examine the specific performances to determine whether they are significant. (And in this case Actualcpscm) has probably made the case here better than I did in the previous AfD)
 * All that said, for this specific AfD discussion I am sympathetic to Girth Summit's concerns, but I guess I am making it clear I support re-creation of this article by a good faith editor once those concerns are addressed. &mdash;siro&chi;o 19:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo I'm a little confused by this; why does the article need to be deleted and recreated for cleanup purposes? I think those concerns have been addressed here, and if not, what remains to be done? Thanks :) Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 19:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will admit, I am not up-to-date on the modern scams targeting subjects of Wikipedia articles. Nor am I familiar enough with the specific subject at this time to evaluate WP:DUE for this article. As such, I am deferring to the editor concerned about the specific issues, as to me they sound like legitimate concerns. I apologize if this is not a satisfying answer, but I hope it explains where I'm coming from. &mdash;siro&chi;o 19:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks! Further input would be appreciated @Girth Summit :) Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 19:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the community is satisfied that notability has been established, and that the article has been cleaned up and uses reliable sources, then no it doesn't need to be deleted and recreated (although some early versions may warrant revdeletion for the BLP concerns). The 'write a bad article then blackmail the subject' scam is, unfortunately, fairly common. If the page is kept, it would be good if some participants were to watchlist it in case the spammers return to it. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to keep an eye on it. The revisions affected by the BLP concerns are here, I think applying RevDel to them is reasonable given the circumstances. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the source table. Many good sources, some not so much. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Does the voice dubbing artist meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR ?. If not, then it should be redirect till the lead role is played. Worldiswide (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the source table and good assessment by the editor. Citadeol  (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep notable for his acting, the drug case, and, if nothing else, for being a nepo baby. He's in the tabloids at least once a week, so I can't imagine there being a dearth of coverage for GNG. AryKun (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.