Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roshan Meka


 * 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.

Whilst the nominator has vehemently pushed the point that GNG isn't met and made extremely extensive contributions to the debate, I fear we're caught up in another battle of the ongoing SNG vs GNG wars. The lead of WP:N states that passing an SNG means someone is presumed to be notable (and it would be utterly otiose to have SNGs if every article had to also meet GNG). It is not, as far as I can see, disputed that the subject passes an SNG. The presumption of notablity given by passing the SNG can be rebutted, but the consensus of this debate is that it has not been; I also cannot ignore the very considerable numerical disparity between the keep and delete sides with the former a clear leader. As such, the result of the discussion is keep.

I have carefully considered this closure and will not be changing it or adding to it. If you wish to dispute it, please take it to DRV and I waive all requirements to consult with me first. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Roshan Meka

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

Two films WP:NACTOR, but no reliable sources for WP:GNG. Sources, both in English and Telugu, are all routine movie announcements/reviews, event galleries/listicles or about his father. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NACTOR; played lead role in two notable films and won a notable award. Film reviews are not routine, they are independent criticism of the work and are primary indication of notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NACTOR is an Additional criteria which shows People are likely to be notable if they meet it. WP:BIO specifically says about these criteria that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A movie review which devotes two lines to the subject isn't the sort of coverage that meets WP:GNG (some of the sourced reviews don't even have a single specific line about him; they combine both stars like "The duo makes the most" and leave at that). Award isn't notable, like say Padma awards, to merit inclusion without sources. Hemantha (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Meeting SNG (much like meeting GNG) means that the subject has merit for inclusion. However, consensus can determine whether the article can be merged elsewhere (such as WP:BLP1E) or deleted for reasons other than notability (WP:NOT). Its not a advocacy for GNG over SNG because an article may still be deleted in the above conditions even after that subject has met GNG. I mentioned the reviews part to support "significant roles in multiple notable films," for the NACTOR requirement, not GNG. Goes without saying that any review rarely spares more than two lines for a single actor because they ought to cover the film in a comprehensive manner. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you say which source covers him significantly enough? Hemantha (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've cast my vote and do not intend to argue over it, but since I see you feel very strongly about it for some reason, I'll answer shortly. Movie reviews are not routine, as you say above (especially not by The Times of India, which positively reviews his performance). Neither is the award he's won. Neither is a leading role in a major production released just a couple of months ago. Both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR support his notability. I don't know this guy, but I think there's a strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. I think it's better if you withdraw this gratuitous nomination. He's notable, period. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I hardly would've expected aspersions like above from a long-term contributor like you. I request withdrawing them or providing diffs to support the bad faith I'm accused of exhibiting.
 * On the content of ToI reviews, there's literally two sentences about him in each of them. Also see WP:TOI; its reliability is contested. Hemantha (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No aspersions are being cast or intended to be cast at all. I definitely assume good faith, and that's why I suggested that you consider withdrawing it. Anyway, TOI is perfectly legitimate for film reviews (its reliability is contested in the case of contentious claims), and I can hardly think of more sentences than two for the mention of an actor's work within a film review. It is a review of the film after all, that's how it's done most of the time. But just having gone over Google results with his name, I see plenty of reliable sources, interviews and what not. He's already won an award, and his films are notable, too. I believe he is notable, that's all I can add. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Since this raised hackles, I've gone back to see how consensus has evolved about barely passing NACTORs. Josh Hammond case is very similar as well as the recently deleted Anusha Rai. Note that NACTOR doesn't mention awards; the WP:ANYBIO award is for significant ones, a regional "debut award" simply does not apply. I see enough justification to not withdraw.


 * {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

! Year of AfD, AfD !! Notes !! Result
 * 2021 Anusha Rai|| Two films lead (one was AfDed later even though it has similar coverage as Roshan's movies), voters claimed NACTOR fail || deleted in admin closure
 * 2020 Khushi Ravi || Two film leads, one film isn't on en-wiki, but has coverage similar to Roshan's movies, voters claimed NACTOR fail || deleted in admin close
 * 2020 Sree Leela || Lead in two films || draftified in a nac
 * 2020 Shivani Rangole || Lead roles in a film and serial plus more lead roles in serials with no wiki page || deleted in admin close as GNG fail
 * 2020 Anjali Dinesh Anand || Two lead roles in >100 episode serials and an award nom; lots of TOI sources were questioned || deleted in admin close
 * 2020 Josh Hammond || at least three film leads || deleted in admin close with specific comment: 'While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not'
 * 2020 Lakshmi Devy || barely passed NACTOR, but at least the sources name her in headlines and cover in-depth || keep in admin close
 * 2020 Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan || Two lead roles in serials, multiple film support roles, 'Best Actor in Tamil' award for a short film || deleted in admin close, recreated since
 * 2019 Michael Treanor || two popular film leads || no consensus in admin close with comment 'falls within the letter of WP:NACTOR, which suggests that perhaps the criteria need to be tightened'
 * 2019 Sandile Mahlangu || multiple leads in TV || no consensus in admin close, because GNG fail but plausible NACTOR
 * } Hemantha (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In most of the cases above, including Anusha Rai where I !voted, primary concerns of meeting NACTOR were the notabilty of the films/TV shows' appeared, and whether their roles where significant enough. Here, Meka starred (has the top-billed credit) in two notable films, Nirmala Convent and Pelli SandaD; its a clear WP:NACTOR pass. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2020 Lakshmi Devy || barely passed NACTOR, but at least the sources name her in headlines and cover in-depth || keep in admin close
 * 2020 Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan || Two lead roles in serials, multiple film support roles, 'Best Actor in Tamil' award for a short film || deleted in admin close, recreated since
 * 2019 Michael Treanor || two popular film leads || no consensus in admin close with comment 'falls within the letter of WP:NACTOR, which suggests that perhaps the criteria need to be tightened'
 * 2019 Sandile Mahlangu || multiple leads in TV || no consensus in admin close, because GNG fail but plausible NACTOR
 * } Hemantha (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In most of the cases above, including Anusha Rai where I !voted, primary concerns of meeting NACTOR were the notabilty of the films/TV shows' appeared, and whether their roles where significant enough. Here, Meka starred (has the top-billed credit) in two notable films, Nirmala Convent and Pelli SandaD; its a clear WP:NACTOR pass. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2019 Sandile Mahlangu || multiple leads in TV || no consensus in admin close, because GNG fail but plausible NACTOR
 * } Hemantha (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In most of the cases above, including Anusha Rai where I !voted, primary concerns of meeting NACTOR were the notabilty of the films/TV shows' appeared, and whether their roles where significant enough. Here, Meka starred (has the top-billed credit) in two notable films, Nirmala Convent and Pelli SandaD; its a clear WP:NACTOR pass. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In most of the cases above, including Anusha Rai where I !voted, primary concerns of meeting NACTOR were the notabilty of the films/TV shows' appeared, and whether their roles where significant enough. Here, Meka starred (has the top-billed credit) in two notable films, Nirmala Convent and Pelli SandaD; its a clear WP:NACTOR pass. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In most of the cases above tells me you didn't read any. I request you read Josh Hammond close at least. Anusha Rai too had lead in two local language films, with requisite two reviews in Kannada and similar English coverage (except for Hindu); why you would consider one strong but other weak is beyond me. Hemantha (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rai's films did not have the requisite reliable reviews (atleast two for each film), in fact, her second film was deleted in AfD. In Hammond's case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence whether he played "significant" roles in notable films to meet NACTOR. In any case, each subject is better evaluanted on its own merit rather than trying to draw parellels. With leading roles in two notable films, Meka passes #1 of NACTOR, that's all is needed. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting from that close once more While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not. Your interpretation that NACTOR is all that's needed is at odds with community's, as expressed through past AfDs as well as WP:BIO.
 * To make it clear once more, I'm claiming that the sources do not meet WP:GNG. None of the arguments above are even engaging with it. Hemantha (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When NACTOR is met (not might), the question of GNG does not arise. Quoting WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right;". -- Ab207 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added  14:54, 5 January 2022‎
 * And if you click that link on presumed, the "presumption" is defined as an assumption ... that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it. This is that challenge; I'm disputing that a two film credit that barely passes NACTOR is enough to prove notability in light of the absence of any significant coverage in independent sources. --Hemantha (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Two film credit does pass NACTOR. Deleting an article about a subject that passes SNG which is neutrally written, reliably sourced, long enough to be nominated for DYK, and does not contain any content excluded under WP:NOT is out of principle in the light of WP:PRESERVE. I believe we've both made our points, and I don't think continuing this conversation would be any more productive. It's better to wait for others to chip in and form a consensus. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you quote WP:PRESERVE, suggest suitable merge target per Notability_(people), instead of rehashing the same "NACTOR trumps GNG" argument for the n-th time. Hemantha (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither SNG nor GNG trump each other, they are just a different set of tools which are used to guage a subject's notability. I believe there is adequate non-trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to justify a standalone article. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the disagreement may be from fundamental issues in notability guidelines and/or due to differences between NFILM and BIO/NACTOR. Your assertions would be completely correct with NFILM. NACTOR though is different. I've struck part of my comment above. Anyway if I had read this late 2020 WT:N discussion and the subsequent RfC, I'd have tried to drive this AfD to consider sources than getting bogged down in an SNG vs GNG discussion; which I've done now. --Hemantha (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - for what it's worth, the article is notable per both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR (and yes, if the latter is satisfied, the former can be easily excluded, although it's met too). It's just a redundant nomination, imo, and no offence is meant to the nominating user. The comparison to other articles is exactly the kind of argument one should avoid on such pages. WP:WAX is a useful read - I highly recommend that we all focus on the merit of this particular article. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment To focus the discussion towards sources, here's the source assessment. He's been an actor since 2015 and the even the local language press (at least the most important IMO) is accessible via internet. There's not enough even for WP:BASIC.
 * Hemantha (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC) updated Hemantha (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hemantha (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC) updated Hemantha (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - (sigh) I'm sorry, the above table is pointless, and it is based on nothing but your personal opinion of what constitutes significant coverage rather than what policy says. I can't think of how a film review can give better service to an actor than just mention him in a line. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to the above, WP:BASIC does not necessarily need substantial coverage from a single source; non-trivial coverage from the various reliable sources also fits the bill. Not every actor gets a mention about their performance in the film reviews. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment and  We seem to be meeting up on the same deletion discussions. Maybe an WP:SPI is in order? As for this article which was reviewed by me, my understanding is that he played the sole male lead role in 2 movies, both of which are considered notable by our standards. WP:NACTOR point 1 - significant role (sole male lead) in multiple films (2 in this case) is met which was why I approved this. Since I reviewed this page I will recuse from voting, but just thought you should know the rationale.  Jupitus Smart  02:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jupitus Smart, For NACTOR and GNG, please see the closure statement of a 2017 rfc, this 2020 discussion on WT:N and the RfC that followed it; all of which I've linked above. I don't expect everybody to be completely aware of policy minutiae, especially one as confusing as WP:N, but to jump to accusations based on partial understanding is bad behavior. I know these are sock-infested waters (I came across this page from one I filed) but I strongly resent the repeated, uncalled-for WP:ABF here and request striking it. Hemantha (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , arguments aside, I'm sure Jupitus Smart was humourously referring to an SPI on them, Shshshsh and me. It's not an accusation or ABF on you in anyway. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec with Jupiter) Okay, the wording was confusing. I've struck parts of my comment. Hemantha (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Humour is like the virus, not everybody gets it. You should tone down the WP:ABF though. As I said I am merely stating the rationale for approving this and not getting into voting here.  Jupitus Smart  07:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Much commenting, not a lot of consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  00:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe an SPI is indeed inorder. ;) Anyway, the fact that you reviewed this article doesn't mean you can't vote, quite on the contrary actually. This is not a page for article promotion where some kind of CoI should be avoided, this page determines if this page should stay at all on WP and naturally all people involved or uninvolved (including its creator, not just first reviewer) who have an opinion and can defend it with policy are encouraged to vote here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is probably going to end in a keep anyway, and the nominator somehow seems to be taking this personally, which is a reason why I would rather not be drawn into this. I generally stay away from articles pertaining to the Telugu film industry of which I know little about, but approved this article based on my interpretations of the rules, which I felt obliged to explain. Best.  Jupitus Smart  16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As this has turned into a banter thread, I'd like to greatly thank @Ab207 for challenging me productively here. I've understood so much more about nuances of the WP:N guidelines than I'd have thought possible. I would probably not have found this highly illuminating WT:N thread if not for that exchange above. Hemantha (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep appears to meet WP:NACTOR. WP:N suggests a subject is presumed notable if they pass either GNG or a SNG and thus passing NACTOR is sufficient in my view. NemesisAT (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this statement is incorrect. Meeting a SNG is not a substitute for meeting the GNG per WP:SNG: Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Meeting WP:NACTOR is only an indication that an article subject probably passes WP:N. That is a rebuttable presumption and when it is called into question sources demonstrating WP:N compliance must be found. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the same as GNG, it's a presumption. I don't think the quote you shared disproves my statement. Frequently, "passes WP:GNG" is used as a reason for keeping an article. My point was that the wording of WP:N suggests that the SNGs can be used as an alternative to GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , a well-attended Village Pump RfC found otherwise: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline.. Hope that helps. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a direct contradiction to what it says at WP:N, I've got to ask why nobody has changed the guidelines then and why a user (who is perhaps ubfa.ilia
 * This is a direct contradiction to what it says at WP:N, I've got to ask why nobody has changed the guidelines then and why a user (who is perhaps unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works) observe an old archived conversation from 2017 instead of our current guidelines. I know this isn't your fault as such. NemesisAT (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to continue discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep All that said, I do see sourcing that indicates "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" within the context of Indian cinema (accepting that assessing independence of any coverage of that subject is difficult at best). Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you see the source assessment I did before? I'm only asking so that I know which source I mis-labeled as insignificant and since you clearly have a lot of experience in notability questions. hemantha (brief) 03:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * keep Keep per WP:NACTOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishKit (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 January 2022 (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.