Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Sharma


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Sharma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable actor with no coverage and no significant roles. Praxidicae (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Twitter is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: The coverage I've found is all quite routine and not very in-depth—but it does show that the subject has had significant roles in films. However, the question to which, frankly, I don't have an answer is whether those films are notable. Therefore, I'm going to err on the side of caution and vote "Weak Keep" for the moment. Here are the sources I found:
 * →https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/bigg-boss-11-contestant-sapna-choudhary-makes-bollywood-debut-in-bhangover-song-love-bite/story-IvrCZW4nGsTNLs66UOnPaL.html
 * →https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/surgical-strike-bollywood-film-4911845/
 * →https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/141217/like-padmavati-journey-of-bhangover-also-got-delayed-because-of-cbfc-director.html
 * →https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/saurabbh-k-roy-and-surbhi-singla-will-share-screen-together-in-love-alert/articleshow/64870099.cms
 * →https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/060916/i-am-not-a-porn-star-like-sunny-leone-rakhi-sawant-slams-censor-board.html
 * Dflaw4 (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * TOI is not a reliable source as per WP:RSN and specifically in this case, it's definitely not. It's a pushed PR piece with no author. Deccanchronicle also has a very tenuous relationship with presenting accurate information and identifying their paid pieces from none, not to mention it's a single sentence mention and not even about the subject. Hindustantimes and indianexpress are also just passing mentions. I've seen several !votes like this of yours implying that passing mentions somehow satisfy our requirement for in-depth coverage, so I'd encourage you to read Identifying and using independent sources. Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Praxidicae. I do not believe that TOI is a default unreliable source, as per the recent discussion at WP:RSN. If you believe that the particular article to which I provided the link is unreliable, that is fine, and I certainly have no issue with other editors disagreeing with me.
 * I have already read the document regarding sources, which you provided, and, to be clear, I do not believe that mere mentions equate to in-depth coverage. Above I stated, "The coverage I've found is all quite routine and not very in-depth..." I am probably more lenient when it comes to GNG than some editors, that is true, but I do not believe that the sources I provided above necessarily satisfy GNG. My "Weak Keep" vote was more motivated by the significant roles the subject has had than the sourcing, and it was a very tentative "Weak Keep" at that. But, as I said, I haven't been able to ascertain whether the productions themselves were notable, and I will update my vote if a strong argument is made that they are not. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep as per new sources found. Lack of in-depth coverage is a significant point though. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP rules mean that to even consider keeping this article someone needs to put a source other than twitter connected to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete only passing mentions with no in-depth coverage. Gritmem (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Nom (including additional comments), user:Johnpacklambert (especially the 2nd comment), and user:Gritmem. See "Comments" to be added below. Otr500 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I begin looking closely at an article when notability is questioned. I don't "assume" that someone has ill intent. I likewise don't make the same assumption when someone objects. If I see evidence of an editing practice that is callous or that habitually swings one way or the other (not in-line with policies and guidelines or even relevant community supported essays), I will give less credibility to those comments.
 * I have to give more scrutiny to comments when a search fails to give satisfaction. I have a disdain for articles created in blatant disregard of our core content and notability policies---but--- I NEVER just "vote". I actually have found a somewhat simplified solution to concerns of notability. I look for three sources that follow the basic WP:GNG criteria: 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 or list., (also represented at WP:THREE).
 * As an example in this case, the first source I looked at (presented above), Like Padmavati, Journey of Bhangover also got delayed because of CBFC: Director (Deccan Chronicle) presents more challenges. The title of the article is "Jimmy Sharma". The source contains "The film stars five youths, all newcomers and their adventure as they encounter a Suthradhar, played by Hemant Dubey, a cop, Yashpal Sharma and a funny terrorist, Jaideep Ahlawat.".
 * I read the entire article wondering if "Yashpal Sharma" was or might be Jimmy Sharma. The last paragraph reads, "‘Journey of Bhangover, produced by Meenakshi Iyer and Mahinder Singh Saniwal, also starring Aradhya Taing, Jimmy Sharma and Palash Soni, hits the theatres on Friday.". Truthfully, I have no idea. I assume they are different people but I do know that. While the source might be good for content, it gives no advancement to notability but just proves a person with the same name as the article is listed as being in the film. The subject, however, is not the film, and there is certainly not any significant coverage.
 * I advocate "to err on the side of caution", however, while notability might be somewhat subjective, trivial mentions (passing mentions) are far and above easier to ascertain. To pick and choose or ignore (or the appearance of) any one or two of the basic criteria, gives a false result. Assuming a source is deemed reliable (If not then there are plenty of ways to arrive at a conclusion), we still need to question is a source reliable?. Is the subject the main topic (easy to tell): Either way, does it provide significant coverage (also easy to tell)? Is the source independent or somehow tied to the subject in any number of ways (related, connected, primary source), that may need closer examination? If I can't arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on all the above I tend to discount the source concerning notability.
 * I can't be "motivated by the significant roles the subject has had than the sourcing" when the entire concept of notability revolves around sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2020 (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.