Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mansi Dovhal


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mansi Dovhal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fail WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in reliable sources that established the subject notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON if ever. WP:IMDB is not a reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Nominator failed to notice the coverage provided in the article itself. Arun Kumar SINGH  (Talk)  16:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of subject on wikipedia is beyond a passing mention and notability is not inherited. Evidence of subject notability is not the same as evidence of subject existence. Evidence of subject notability requires a wide discussions of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. A passing mention is enough for evidence of subject existence which you had shown in your article under deletion discussion here. When she becomes notable for her work in the future, we may consider a stand-alone article but too soon to be a subject of encyclopedic. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The sources provided is just an evidence that she's doing her job as a non-notable actress and not an evidence of meeting our inclusion criteria.
 * I took my time to check the references/sources one-by-one. Ref 1 is WP:IMDB and that is not a reliable source. Ref 2 discussed the movie titled "Rakhtbeej" in detail and not the subject of the article. Ref 5 is a mere photo-gallery of Aamir Khan. Ref 4 and 6 discussed the same Aamir Khan in detail with a passing mention of the subject of this article and everyone will agree with me that notability is not inherited. Ref 7 look promising but not enough to merit an encyclopedic article for now, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikicology: In response to what you stated above, I have left a message on your talk page. You really need to understand the reasons better before putting any more articles for deletion since your track record on WP:AfD is very poor and 57% of your nominations failed and you have just increased work for other editors. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  05:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, learn to use wikilinks. "Significant coverages" means that the reliable sources must address the subject directly and in detail and not just a passing mention.
 * Your lack of experience makes it concerning. Your obvious lack of understanding with regard to basic policies and guidelines makes it a problem but I will WP:AGF and that is why I will ignore the personal attacks here and on my talk page. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikicology: My lack of experience? Have you given a good look at your experience and your past record? You must have the commonsense to understand that this is deletion discussion page and hence I left message on your talk page for other matters. Once again, you started spamming my page with attacks and now are putting a lazy nomination for WP:Afd. Furthermore and understand that you are an experienced user who is desperate to adopt new users, but try that somewhere else and don't start preaching me on how to use learn to use wikilinks. You have no business to become my mentor of some sort. Stop the unsolicited guidance immediately. If you don't want people to leave messages on your talk page advising you not to perform certain action; then to begin with don't do that to others. I don't wish to indulge in any further discussion with you and would appreciate if you stop this act of hostility and acting smart. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  10:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I respect the fact that all wikipedia veterans were once inexperienced at one time but the ability to learn makes them a better wikipedian. Learning is a continues process here on wikipedia, hence my username Wikicology. I agree that editors cannot know everything in a day, even for the first few years on wikipedia. Sorry that am a bit blunt with you and I will appreciate it if we focus on the article under discussion. I will ignore and remove the personal attack on my talk page. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikicology, it was not an attack as you are trying to term it. I left a message for you for what you did and have been trying to do. Don't come across as Mr. I Know It All. When I had a doubt; I asked you for help; didn't I? Arrogance and constantly being on someone's tail with the intention to pin the person wont take you anywhere - be rest assured of that. I am on Wikipedia because I like contributing here and getting into useless discussion is the last thing I want. For the last time, stop using careful words like attack etc to make your case valid. I did not start this sheer waste of time; you did and you need to step up and own it. Don't do it next time; I was trying to avoid having this discussion on the WP:AfD but since you wanted to keep your Talk Page clean, you are forcing a discussion here. I am sure you know what are the guidelines of deleting discussions from Talk Page are; don't you? My advice to you again is stop wasting people's time as you are doing right now by taking a discussion out of your Talk Page and putting it on WP:AfD discussion.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  11:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gosh! Once again familiarize yourself with basic policies and guidelines before you engaged in any argument in the future. If you are familiar with policies and guidelines, you will be aware that editors have the right to remove contents from their talk page.
 * Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. The removal of material from a user talk page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. Please read WP:REMOVED.Again, focus on this AfD discussion! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikicology, you are impossible and wont learn !!!!! Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - I've hatted this section of off-topic discussion. It really has nothing to do with the subject or the AFD and doesn't help anyone establish any form of consensus. If you have something AFD-related to contribute, please (by all means) do so.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. Passing reference to her in articles about other actors and other films isn't "significant coverage". There is nowhere near enough biographical information there with which to build a reliably sourced article with verified claims. I suppose it might be possible for her to pass WP:NACTOR if it can be demonstrated that the roles she has had are significant enough. But the articles for the films in question are in worse shape than hers. There is no way to know if her roles were major roles or minor roles and what little coverage there is doesn't tell us anything.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Stalwart111: Actress has played lead / major roles in movies and have been credited to her as cited in references provided. What has the commercial success of a movie got to do with notability; can you please explain your remark "...the films in question are in worse shape than hers"? It might be a coincidence but I noticed that the nominator of this article and you have some history together. At this point, I am not saying this is a case of WP:GANG and am merely highlighting the observation. I am surprised to note that a nominator makes a mistake, then instead of correcting it ignores the references provided despite his own terrible personal record and now I have to see this.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  05:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For a start, two people disagreeing with you isn't a tag-team. I've made exactly one comment in this discussion; this is my second. We don't have "history together"; we were both drawn into the same (major) sock-puppetry investigation involving what could turn out to be one of Wikipedia's most prolific sock-puppeteers and efforts by dozens of editors (which happens to include the two of us) and admins to stop him. I regularly participate at AFD (as noted on my user page) and so my participation here is not at all out of the ordinary. Assumptions of bad faith and attempts to drag this discussion away from the topic at hand won't help. All of that aside, if you read carefully, I said, " the articles for the films in question are in worse shape than hers". WP:NACTOR requires, significant roles in multiple notable films. It's not clear to me whether any of those films are notable, given most of their articles are unreferenced. The one source used for the majority of content in this article would seem to be at last partially based on this article (or the other way around) and possibly user-generated. IMDB and other sources like it are not considered reliable sources. Even then, that one single instance of significant coverage wouldn't be enough anyway. So we don't have enough for WP:GNG and we can't make a determination with regard to WP:NACTOR. If you can stick to the topic at hand (rather than conspiracy theories) I'm happy to consider whatever you can bring forward in either regard.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stalwart111: To begin with, I never accused you for anything; just stated my observation (read up). Don't get me wrong please. Coming back to the subject, this news article about movie Trump Card clearly mentions her as the female lead (same words quoted) whereas this article about movie Rakhtbeej talks about her role in the film which by any means is not a "day role" or "cameo". Another write-up talks about summary of some of her work. Aren't these significant roles in multiple movies? Four of her movies have articles on Wikipedia; well if the films were not notable; why would the pages exist. Discussion about quality of the movie is totally irrelevant for this discussion. Trust this explains.  Arun Kumar SINGH  (Talk)  07:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing at that dead body over there and then at the person over here. I'm not saying he did it, it's just my observation. Best just to steer well clear of anything even remotely accusatory, yeah?
 * Because people can create articles about non-notable things so the sourcing becomes circular. She is notable because the films have articles and the films are notable because the actors have articles. When in reality, none of them are notable. That's why Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. There's one article about the first film, yes, but it doesn't talk about her role - it says she was the female lead. It simply lists her name without explaining whether it was a significant role. Being the female lead in a mostly all-male B-grade film wouldn't count for much. If the role was significant, it's a different story, but we would need reliable sources that say as much. It's not about the quality of the film or the film's article but about the significance of the film. The second film barely has an article and only the subject here is linked from the cast list. The source you provide says quite plainly that, "The film can't boast of established stars, so the item number by Rakhi Sawant is its biggest attraction" which actually suggests all of the other actors in the film aren't notable, even by local Hindi film standards. So we don't have reliable sources that suggest she is notable but we have at least one that suggests she isn't. I've explained the concerns about the IMUSTI source, but you've not addressed those - you've just listed it again.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stalwart111: So this is what I understood from your last message. 1) That the non-notable films and the actors are in sort of loop and supporting each other for notability whereas standalone none of them are notable. So this actor and all the movies she has worked in are non-notable? 2) Lead role in a movie is NOT significant role. 3) Actors who do not perform lead roles in notable movies should not have an article?? 4) Being lead B grade movie does not qualify for GNG or ACTOR?? 5) Sources like Times of India and The Hindu are not reliable and independent. 6) Significance: What exactly is significance? 7) Rakhi Sawant is the biggest attraction; and what exactly is the point?? By that standard, 50% of Bollywood movies should not have an article on Wikipedia.
 * What I am trying to understand which rule, policy or guideline of Wikipedia confirms your interpretation above? Let me assure you that I am the last person to keep an unwarranted article on Wikipedia. Last year I created a page for Mehr Tarar and I immediately realized that perhaps it should not be on Wikipedia and nominated it for deletion. What you are writing above is your own interpretation of the situation and you are ignoring facts. Thanks,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know if there is some sort of language barrier or if you're being sarcastic. I'm happy for others to point out where I went wrong (I think I explained myself fairly clearly) but you've managed to misinterpret almost everything I've written. 1) It happens, so we rely on outside sources rather than WP articles. 2) A lead role is only significant if it is in a notable film, yes (WP:NACTOR). 3) If they fail WP:NACTOR as a result and also fail WP:GNG, no they should not. 4) That's often the case, though it is irrelevant to WP:GNG which doesn't consider such things. 5) Of course they are, but the articles still need to provide "significant coverage", more than just a name-check. 6) WP:SIGCOV. 7) Yes, just like 50% of Hollywood films (the B- and C-grade stuff) that don't have articles on Wiipedia.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 23:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not seeing reliable sources giving the subject significant coverage either. If this actress was notable, there'd be articles and interviews discussing her.  Where are they?  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:35, 16 March 2015 (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.