Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Janoszek


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Natalia Janoszek

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

It was today revealed that the whole career of this person is mostly made up. She starred in two very niche Hindi films in 2012-15, then published a book in Poland in which she introduced herself as a "Bollywood star." And she began to be invited to TV shows (including the Polish edition of Dancing with the Stars). Then she starred in an episode of 365 Days and was an extra (she appeared on screen for 5 seconds, without any line of dialogue) in a niche American comedy.

This is actually the only thing known about her for sure. The rest is probably made up. There is a small controversy about it in Poland these days. There is also a discussion on Polish Wikipedia about the removal of this article. Marcelus (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC) * Speedy keep. Clearly notable, well-sourced etc. If it turns out that there are issues about truthfulness and other aspects of her career, these can be addressed in the article if properly sourced and would only add to her notability. This is not a hoax. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers,  and Poland. Marcelus (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are a lot of examples of actors faking or misrepresenting their resumes (George Lazenby comes to mind as probably the most famous). Can you clarify what you mean by her career being made up with reference to the current state of the article? As in, is there anything currently in the article that a hoax presented as fact? Curbon7 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was about to nominate this article. It should be noted that most likely Natalia herself created article about her on pl.wiki (account name nataliabb → aroundtheworld00), that account edited this article only. English article was also created by account (now banned) with edits being related to this article. She talks about herself like shes big star in India, but literally no Indian media mention her. She played in 1 Indian film that was watched by 16k people and was rated terrible, in 1 American film where she was just sitting on the beach and smiling for 5 seconds and some movie The Swing of Things, all minor roles. She forged her whole carrier and brainless journalists promoted her. Now when you Google her you see media talking about her forging her carrer. It is just WP:PROMO. Sławobóg (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see from Twitter that there seems to be some hubbub over this, but am unable to find solid sources. From what I can tell, these allegations are stemming from a report by Krzysztof Stanowski. I have to ask again, is there anything currently in the en.wiki article that is presented as fact but is in fact a hoax? Just because she is alleged to be a faker does not necessarily mean she is automatically non-notable, it just changes the reason for why she is notable.
 * Also, the account that created the en.wiki article does not have a COI regarding the subject as far as I can tell, so it has little bearing that they are now blocked for other reasons. Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article to mainly manipulations that are meant to create the false impression that her figure is encyclopedic. Jharkhand International Film Festival Awards is very small and non-prestigious thing that started in 2018, their website is not working and they don't even have 2000 likes on Facebook and noone heard about it, which IMO makes this article also nonencyclopedic ("She won JIFFA award twice in a row for the best international actress (2018 and 2019), thus becoming the first Polish actress awarded with an Indian film award" is laughable in this context). The only film that has an article on Wiki is Dreams, but she played such a small role there that she is not even listed as an actor on IMBd. Her "big (leading)" role is in a movie that had 16k views in theaters (1.408 billion people in India). Everything here is laughable, like mentioning some minor Miss contests, singing during some concert (!), or "She gained international recognition with her performance at the opening ceremony of the 72nd Cannes Film Festival" - how is that thing for Wikipedia? And more importantly, none of the references provide such information: the first does not work, the second mentions her name only in the title and there is nothing about her in the article, the other two are typical sucking up to the "star" by journalists. "She was spotted at Supermodel International 2012 in Bangkok and that same year she made her Bollywood debut with the lead role in Dreamz." is sourced by IMDb (!) and that information can't be found there (!!). Sławobóg (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussion raised at WP:BLPN. Curbon7 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lard Almighty i just gave 2 examples of falsified references. Sławobóg (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has 20 references. They aren't all fake. Just because someone fakes aspects of her life or career history doesn't mean she stops being notable. In fact, as I say, it can make her notable. There is no reason to delete this article. If more information can be reliably sourced it can be added. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment We need a valid WP:DEL-REASON to delete this article, and that should have been provided in the deletion nomination. Does this article present WP:BLP issues? Is it a WP:BLP1E or WP:1E? Does it fail WP:GNG (perhaps because the sources are unreliable or mentions are trivial)? Or is this a WP:IAR based nomination? If she doesn't actually meet WP:GNG outside of the controversy over the made up career, there may be grounds for deletion under WP:BLP1E and WP:1E Tristario (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lard Almighty, @Curbon7, @Tristario and @Sławobóg I think the main issue is that this person isn't notable enough, and the article is providing misleading informations about her. It claims that she is a film producer, but there is no information on film ever produced. It also claims she is a singer, but she never published any album and from what is known performed only once on the New Year's Eve concert covering Snap! song.
 * She is a film actress, that for sure. From what I have been able to ascertain she has acted in three niche films in India: Flame: An Untold Love Story, Dreamz and Chicken Curry Law, none of which seem to me to be notable. She received two niche local awards for these. In Poland, she played a short episode in the film 365 Days. And a brief 5-second no-line role in the American film The Swing of Things.
 * She has participated in niche beauty contests, none of which she seems to have won.
 * She has declared herself a Bollywood star in Poland, published a book, and has been invited to TV shows for this reason. And she appeared on the cover of the Polish edition of Cosmopolitan. I also managed to confirm that she was actually also on the cover of L'Officiel Arabia in October 2021.
 * In my view, these are not achievements that meet notability requirements. Marcelus (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you give policy based reasons for the deletion, according to the guidance in the kinds of policies and guidelines I mentioned? We generally determine notability according to whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, not according to our views of the significance of what they've done Tristario (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NBASIC, none of the sources where she is covered are reliable, these are mostly online tabloids, details of her biography are based mostly on her own words.
 * WP:ENTERTAINER, her roles in movies or TV productions aren't significant enough (minor movies, with minimal reception).
 * WP:NOTADVOCACY, the article is most likely a self-promotion. Marcelus (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I see she's received quite a bit of coverage in media outlets relation to the controversy over alleged fabrication of career details, and she has received coverage prior to that too. Most of the websites look poor quality though (it's difficult for me to assess since I'm not familiar with polish news outlets), and the controversy may fall under WP:BLP1E and WP:1E.
 * I'm probably leaning towards delete since all the coverage prior to the controversy could probably be considered unreliable due to the now widely covered alleged fabrication, and it looks poor quality anyway. Which leaves us with a WP:1E Tristario (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: similar discussion right now on the Polish side] with a similar (lack of) consensus so far but also sharing a lot of the same discussion. From what I can see so far it looks like there may be more lean towards reworking the article and adding discussion about the controversy but it does not appear to be a true Hoax as we'd define it even if potentially there was early in her career. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Per my reasoning above. But "weak" because my ability to assess the polish sourcing is limited. The weakness and dubiousness of the sourcing prior to the controversy and the controversy being a WP:1E lead me to think this should be deleted. If this article were only about the controversy I also think that would present WP:BLP issues (WP:DEL-REASON #9) such as with not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives --Tristario (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:9420:F800:F010:AD6A:C64B:8001 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per WP:BLPDELETE - if a BLP of a relatively low-profile individual comes into question, policy says that deletion is a valid option. "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion if requested." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ritchie333. This for me is exactly where the spirit of our BLP policy shines through. This is not a normal set of circumstances and therefore rigidly applying the matrixes we normally would isn't the most effective way of judging this article, and hence I feel the spirit of our BLP policy is the most important guiding factor here. Daniel (talk) 00:19, 17 June 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.