Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Azhari


 * 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 no consensus. What a mess. Those arguing to keep this article have spent far too long badgering the opposition, and far too little providing reliable sources and explaining what makes them so. Conversely, the few sources that have been provided (albeit late in the discussion) haven't been commented on by most !voters. The walls of text are long enough to scare most fresh eyes away; so I'm closing this as no consensus, explicitly with no prejudice against speedy renomination. I would like to remind the "keep" !voters in particular to confine their attentions to evidence for notability, substantiated by sources, in any future AfD, and to lay off of personal commentary. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Azhari

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:NACTOR. Noting IMDb is not an acceptable source. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: this article mentions little aside from controversies she's involved in. I don't think this follows WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE policies and I didn't turn up anything (in English) that could help balance it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Ok, no comment on whether these Indonesian sources are WP:RS, but this no longer is an article entirely about controversies she's been in, so I'm striking this !vote as no longer relevant. -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: For the very same reasons given by asilvering. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @GorgeCustersSabre: pinging you since you said you were following my reasoning and I've struck my !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm really not finding much in a Google search that would help (string: "Sarah azhari"). I don't know Indonesian, but it's not hard to suss out the loanwords "Foto" and "Gossip", and what few sources I've turned Google Translate on are scandal-raggy in tone. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 05:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Change to Neutral. The presence of offline sources as mentioned by other commentors can't be ruled out here. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 22:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - When researching Sarah Azhari on Google Indonesia articles about her are found and her works are found on every possible big platform, press and even mentioned in books. Who really knows about Indonesia knows of Sarah Azhari and the Azhari family works in both movies, sitcom and music that are nonetheless a great part of history in Indonesian culture and society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 95% of all links Google pulls up are not acceptable sources, and as she is still a living person merely claiming those sources exist is not enough. They must be provided directly. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 06:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * as you mentioned, you don't talk Indonesian ... so I find it outstanding for you to analyze google researches in Indonesian language, in less than few minutes to assest 90% of the google search articles in indonesian regarding the matter are not relevant and do not prove notability... wondering if you have any magic forces to drive your amazing intuition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The very nature of Google (and Internet search engines as a whole) means that it will pull literally everything that seems to be somewhat relevant and put it into the search results, hence my blanket statement about Google searches. The 95% figure is from over a decade of experience editing Wikipedia and looking for sources for various topics, and I see no reason why the Indonesian-language Google search would be any different from the English-language one. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 08:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe because you are not Indonesian? so to me, your hypothesis that 95% of the entire google engine articles regarding a topic are just trashy gossip is just an understatement which sounds to me as someone that has YES, has an incredible amount of years of experience in working in Wikipedia and congratulations for that, but also assuming to know more than they do about a particular topic? and using their own judgment, despite actual facts that lacks of actual fundamental proof which could simply come from researching a bit deeper in a big cultural aspects of an entire nation cultural artifacts in movies and entertainment ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_Cineplex - https://21cineplex.com/slowmotion/sarah-azhari-kebagian-peran-dadakan,364.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That source is unusable (unknown provenance). Who actually wrote it? (Google Translate does a fair job with Indonesian, by the way, and most of the article appears to be Shit She Says and wouldn't be useful for notability or biographical claims on that basis alone.) —A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 09:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is definetely published on the official https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_Cineplex website, which for indonesians is equivalent to an AMC. If being on a big screen is not notability enough then we can proceed here and here where the authors do argue an extensive value point of Indonesian censor basing their arguments on Sarah's modeling career, as well as her sisters and other women which caused an exponential amount of controversy in Indonesian culture, the book won the "Ruth Benedict Prize" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Benedict_Prize#:~:text=The%20Ruth%20Benedict%20Prize%20is,bisexual%2C%20or%20transgender%20topic%22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 10:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * theres many many academic books. pages, researches who based their entire studies on marketing aspects, sociological aspect, religious aspects, cultural aspects of the works and examining Sarah's personality, works, modeling career and it took you less than an hour to say "its all shit she say"?
 * what about this?
 * and this ? its all shit she says? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Sarah+Azhari%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=1970&as_yhi=
 * Kapanlagi is useless for notability (too sparse). The PDF is much of the same, using her name for a completely disconnected concept. They don't discuss Sarah in any appreciable depth and merely say her name; that's nowhere near enough to justify citing it for her article. I cannot speak to the book absent a physical copy of it due to Google's viewing limits, but what I did see barely even spoke about Azhari specifically. Google Scholar is worthless unless you're making an WP:NACADEMIC argument. Seriously, if this is the highest calibre of sources you can come up with, the article's pretty much doomed. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 10:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And for the record: It's the 21 Cineplex source specifically that I'm calling out as Shit She Says because the majority of the article is direct quotes attributed to her, to the point where the writer may as well have handed her the pen and gone off to lunch and filled in the remainder with one-line addenda. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 10:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you do definetely are neglectful and have psychic abilities assuming that a book you can't read because of your google view is limited does not prove notability! first 95% of the indonesian google searches are based of not notability, you must have read ALL the articles, know you know so much of the writer's lunch schedule! wow!!!
 * I suggest you reread what I wrote about the book: I cannot speak to the book. The one page I read is not going to be representative of the book as a whole, but it barely even discussed Azhari and so may not have been the best page for you to point us to. And the comment about the writer going off to lunch is hyperbolic and not intended to be construed literally. I think the time has come to ask: What is your connexion to Azhari? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 19:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, please follow it up with an email to WP:VRT, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.201.159.185 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are Amoeba69th, please log in. If you are not, do not put words in their mouth. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I do am not Amoeba. Is it your first time accusing someone of sockpuppetry, dear Jeske?
 * Whatever made you assume I was accusing Amoeba of sockpuppetry? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 23:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * let me explain the situation a little bit Jeske, now this is getting old... because it is complicated. Sarah Azhari was on every possible modeling magazines, television sitcoms and career as an actress, model and singer as been always in the spotlight of mediatic, sociostudies and....politics...particularly the modeling one...coming from a huge family, she is in fact the sister of Cintra Award winner Ayu Azhari, not that does merely give her notoriety....but it is evident that all of these sisters have reached a huge amount of notability because of their progressive view of women in a country that does not usually tolerate it... as you might know Indonesia does not grant of a progressive view of women. religion sociological aspects of it derives from it,  because it is off-topic and there's TOO MUCH more to the thing. Despite that, sarah;s works and persona got at the center of the attention because politics as well played a huge role in her modeling career for oblivious reason. as you can read in Roy Suryo (whose was a minister in indonesia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Suryo the two sisters accused him to leak nude pictures in order to damage their reputation...the case was one of the biggest in Indonesian politics in the last decade to the point it re-shaped constitution and it's been studied still until now by sociologist all around the world ....and Sarah being the major playing role as well as her sister Rahma in these trials, then i don't really know if something that changes indonesian constitution of cyber security and defamation rights is not notable enough  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If everything above is as you claim, then there should be absolutely no trouble finding third-party, in-depth sources with editorial oversight that discuss this (and you would be hard required to provide them in this case). As I have said, I cannot speak to either of the books' suitability as sources, and would defer that question to WT:WikiProject Indonesia.
 * The issue you keep running into is that you're making all these grandiose/controversial claims and yet are failing to provide ironclad sourcing that corroborates them. The more outrageous or unusual the claim, the stronger the cited source corroborating it must be, and the onus is on you, or whoever else is seeking to keep the article, to do the lifting on the sources, not on me (as, frankly, I don't care one way or another). You can't just say "Look at Google results" or "Look at book "; you need to provide links to specific sources and detailed bibliographical information for books in order to defend your position. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * are you reading my references or you just are responding with blindness stubborness to my messages ? oh you dont read, you just vote and you do not care...sorry, forgot about the 95% you found that was gossipy and trashy... https://books.google.com/books?id=K6a6BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=sarah+azhari+%22UU+No.+11+Tahun+2008+tentang+Informasi+dan+Transaksi+Elektronik+(UU+ITE).%22&source=bl&ots=0I-WZXIURJ&sig=ACfU3U2M5ft1APyEOmCb1lzkuZRvcJ0ASQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5uv-40tD1AhVoITQIHRuvAYgQ6AF6BAgPEAM#v=onepage&q=sarah%20azhari%20%22UU%20No.%2011%20Tahun%202008%20tentang%20Informasi%20dan%20Transaksi%20Elektronik%20(UU%20ITE).%22&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to indicate with this link? Her name is on the page only once, in an image caption. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (Reindented. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 02:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure you did read the NEWS article and comprehend the topics discussed in the article? First of all, if you did read it... you would DEFINETELY know what it is about....The articles goes for pages discussing the complicated dynamics of an Indonesian constitutional matter of Cybersecurity and Defamation rights in the the class action of Azhari vs. Suyo and you come out with WHAT YOU MEAN WITH THIS ARTICLE?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 01:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the very limited number of pages we can view don't help make your case at all. There is a reason why I'm not commenting on the books beyond my "first impressions" of them, and that is because Google Books limits page views fairly heavily.  —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How in-depth can it be on her if her name isn't used in the text of the article? I searched the text of the book for her name and it only came up in that caption. It really sounds like you're trying to argue that this legal case is notable, which it may well be? But that's not the same as Azhari being notable. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.mkri.id/public/content/infoumum/majalahkonstitusi/pdf/BMK%20Edisi%20Mei%202009.pdf Amoeba69th (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Refer that source to WT:WikiProject Indonesia. I'm not downloading a source I cannot read. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 04:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Translated As: Classic, I only read what I want to read but still the source you are providing WHICH I AM NOT READING because I dont want to (i cant) but still vote to Delete, {Not a ballot}. Amoeba69th (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to go by Google Translate for Indonesian, as I've explained before. How long do you want me to take to sort through an entire PDF, plug it into the (hard-character-limited) translation interface, and then sort out the input into a language I can read? Please quit with the assumptions of bad faith and show the source to WT:WikiProject Indonesia, as they can assess the source in a timely fashion. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 10:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely not accusing you of bad faith, just WP:HIGHMAINT.Amoeba69th (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Google search result shows not much other than attention-grabbing infotaiments and gossip pieces. The sources given in argument between @Amoeba69th and @Jéské Couriano is a magazine released by Constitution Court on 2009, which talked mostly about the importance of protecting privacy of victims in cyberspace (coincidently citing her controversial case as an example of a victim). Very sparse and she is not the center of the discussion itself, she is just an example used by the magazine. Also, "her case was the biggest scandal to the point of reshaping constitution". As far as Im aware, there's no such a thing and there were only four amandments made to 1945 Constitution, all of which happened after fall of Suharto and very unrelated to petty porn scandal involving some politician. Google scholar result also shows not much. If you are really interested in Indonesian women being progressive, Im sure there are a lot more other figure to focus on. Apologize if my wording sounds aggresive or bad. If you have other sources that you would like to use for the argument keeping this article, I'll be happy to look at it. Im open to change my mind if proven otherwise, but for now i support the deletion. Thank you~ Nyanardsan (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you think the entire Actress, Model and Singer Sarah Azhari article who IS a progressive woman, as you might know.... should be deleted ? because that is what the voting is for... not that paragraph in particular, you are more than welcome to omit the paragraph if you think that is not of encyclopedic importance.Amoeba69th (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be deleted based on what I found (looking at sources in the article and the magazine you brought to the argument here and also the result on Google search is not great). But as I said before, I am open to change my mind and will look at other sources or arguments that you think would prove otherwise. Nyanardsan (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * are you a millenial? (if possible to ask - just saw you are busy in college) Amoeba69th (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By definition, I am not. Thank you for the source, Im not sure if that one actually establish notability since almost everything there is from her Instagram account directly, which makes it not independent. Nyanardsan (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * but do you know about Sarah Azhari or it is the first time you hear her name? millenial was not an insult or anything! what about if you read sarah azhari's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Azhari beside this talk? a lot of the works that she has done are well reported in bahasa indonesia as well and there are way more sources than what ive posted here in the talk page. to mention just one Amoeba69th (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do read the article, which is why I said before the sourcing are not that good. If you think there are more sources, please add it to the article because right now the article's sources are unrelated/passing mention on some articles related to Indonesian women, gossip/infotaiment pieces, or articles related to her controversies. Nyanardsan (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * what you mean by "is not that good"? and req "but do you know about Sarah Azhari or it is the first time you hear her name?" Amoeba69th (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to cut off that line of thought right there. Whether we know of her or not is completely irrelevant to our opinions here, and this line of questioning is becoming problematic. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 02:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jeske you do always do WP:HIGHMAINT on questions given by others, but you do like to inflict your questioning of yours TO OTHERS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already seen this movie, and I have absolutely no interest in its sequel. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 03:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AGAIN FLEXING ON HIS AMAZING EDITORIAL CAREER WP:HIGHMAINT Amoeba69th (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether I know her or not is not important to discuss. As before, please add the relevant sources to the article so it meets WP:GNG and other editors would stop questioning her notability if possible. As I myself an Indonesian, I would like to help you with whether the sources you presented on your arguments are good or not (which unfortunatelly its not so far). Thats all it needs. Thank you~ Nyanardsan (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete because of insufficent sourcing. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 04:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * well, this talk page got as hot as Sarah in gossip talks.... but now i am curious to see if something I don't consider a reliable source it could be?

I mean Kim Kardashian has a wikipediaAmoeba69th (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the source? This wouldn't be a good source for this article or for Kim Kardashian's article since it's gossip-rag junk that is has a very "leering" tone to it, per a Google Translate of the page. You also can't make a convincing argument based on the presence, absence, or status of tangentially-related articles. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 09:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, i did red it and thats why i said i dont consider it a good source myself either ... Amoeba69th (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I instead believe this can work? Amoeba69th (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Correcto's good; Kompas is primarily Shit She Says. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * cool and thanks, an admin told me what kind of articles would have been required and now i can see there is many sources like that, i will find some more...

i guess more than 1 and less than infinite are needed....any suggestion on how many? btw Isnt quoting someone in an article considered as secondary source anyway because the editor had processed what "they thought was relevant" ? (//"No, quotes from historical figures which are found in secondary sources are not considered primary sources. The author of the book/article has processed the quotation, selecting it from the original source."//) Amoeba69th (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * could find this as well  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and this other one Amoeba69th (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * here's another  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 23:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Given Amoeba69th's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior about this article, I'm beginning to wonder about UPE.  Mini  apolis  00:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked them point-blank about their connexion to Azhari. They ignored the question/didn't answer it. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 00:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * i am not holding grudges, but isnt wikipedia of editorial "free expression"? ...i apologized already for sounding mad and limiting someone opinion.... but i am also finding sources so we can have a discussion without doing anything else.... why can't I SIMPLY express MY opinions and list sources without being accused of all this stuff ? what am i doing by expressing my points and the researches i've made ? i was simply stating the references so jeske and the others could finally give opinions about sources, why you guys are trying to shut me up? its a reflist talk or a pillory in my regards? Amoeba69th (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We're asking about your connexion for a fairly understandable reason. Our concern isn't so much that you have a conflict of interest, but that you're possibly being paid to do this and have failed to disclose it, as you've dodged or ignored three direct questions about it now, counting the times I asked on IRC. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 04:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jéské, I do am not getting paid to edit about it, is there anyone getting paid to edit wikipedia ? should not that be illegal? what about if i someone has enough money to even pay wikipedia to say the earth is flat? (sorry if i make such a statement, i know some people believe in that too) but i would have disclosed it if i was getting paid for it, wikipedia editing is curing my depression and making me more neurotic than i usually am... why would i risk a ban not disclosing a payment? Amoeba69th (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Amoeba69th's exhaustive battleground behavior notwithstanding, I concur with the consensus, and find that the sources presented do not provide WP:SIGCOV to this BLP article.   Ravenswing     04:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: (despite my [WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]]) for what reason the sources provided do not provide not mean WP:SIGCOV ? Amoeba69th (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish to respectfully point out that, once crossed-out Deletes ( Delete ) are discarded, there are now five Delete comments & six Keep or Strong keep comments. So no consensus at the moment ... Peaceray (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (no !vote yet). Disregarding all the trashy sources, the case of Sarah Azhari appears in numerous academic sources (search on Google Scholar and add "actress", "model" or "artis" to get the right person) about the changing public image of femininity and sexuality between exploitation and empowerment in the 2000s. Most of these are passing mentions, but there are lots of them, and I get the impression that authors who discuss that topic inevitably include Sarah Azhari as a well-known example (since I don't !vote "oppose", I don't feel obliged to list all these sources individually here; someone else may do it in a coherent and constructive manner). This alone of course doesn't make up WP:GNG, but given the fact that she has appeared in several films (a minor role in a major film, and major roles in lesser films) and TV shows (for which it shouldn't be that hard to collect some decent non-crappy sources), it should be clear she is not just some random beauty queen etc. which permanently haunt us here in endless AfDs. Whether these two key facts (multiple passing mentions in academic sources; mid-to-low ranking but pretty well-known actress in Indonesia) are enough for WP:GNG—dunno. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG, let alone the subject-specific guidelines noted above. Interesting that this "discussion" is much longer than the article itself; although UPE has been denied, there seems to be a substantial conflict of interest.  Mini  apolis  15:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep – the article is bad because no one is updating it. The Indonesian article provides a bit more context on her case. It made prominent news headlines in Indonesia. Amoeba69 is not exaggerating, it's just a little bit hard to find sources on it because it's historical (late 90s and early 00s) and Indonesian news sources aren't exactly digitized back then. Her case is used in at least one PhD thesis from Monash University (see here). A 2014 book on sex and sexualities in Indonesia also brings up her case (see here). An Eka Kurniawan anthology of short stories, much reprinted (see here) mentions her in passing, acknowledging her fame. Tirto.id, not a gossip tabloid but a reputable news source, has her biography mentioning her case (see here). Finally, here is the Film & Video Directorate of the Information Ministry of Indonesia in 1999 publishing a book titled What & Who in Indonesian Film giving an entire biographical section for Sarah Azhari (see here). Her notability is rather historical, not current; that's why it's a bit hard to find things further than gossipy articles, even more so if you're coming in not from the Indonesian locale Google. In other words, she's a household name around here. Xn00bit (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit to add: here she is from a news article in 2009. Her name the first words in the headline, the headline says she is being defamed by Roy Suryo. The entire article talks about her process in the police. Kapanlagi, despite the user above saying it's worthless, is actually one of the earliest internet publications in Indonesia, and in this 2009 article again her case is mentioned, with her at the forefront. As well as this detik article, another early internet publication. I'm just trying to say that it's a historical case rather than a current one, and the case is pretty much worth mentioning since it appears in many academic studies.Xn00bit (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At least one of the sources from Kapanlagi that were proffered are worthless. One is a (frankly skeevy) tabloidy comparison between her and Kim Kardashian (per the GTrans). The other one was dismissed at WP:RSN as more of the same, though I'd call this source borderline (again, per the Google Translate). —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Xn00bit. dwadieff ✉ 16:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep If we have articles for American celebrities like Kim Kardashian, it seems to me that we should have the same for Indonesian celebrities. That much of the material is in Indonesian is not an argument for deleting it. I have no doubt that if we keep digging, or involve the Indonesian speaking community, this will become obvious that Azhari is notable, albeit with a lot of notoriety.
 * If the deletion proponents prevail, I request that an administrator moves this into the Draft space simply as not ready for prime time. Again, I have no doubt that additional sources will be found; the difficulty here is language.
 * Dropping this thesis citation here:
 * Peaceray (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:WAX argument isn't a good one, but I would not be averse to a draftification as opposed to deletion. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I fully expected that someone would bring up the WAX portion of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay while not addressing the Systematic bias (another essay) point that I raised.
 * Two points to consider:
 * Español, Bahasa Indonesia, Jawa, مصرى, & Bahasa Melayu Wikipedias all consider Azhari to be notable enough for an article.
 * English Wikipedia has a rigor for reliable sources that in turn can be utilitarian & exemplary for other Wikipedias. If significant RS can be found, regardless of the language or media, then they establish notability & can be reused elsewhere.
 * Peaceray (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't make the argument that this should be kept because other Wikipediae have an article on her. Not only does this just double down on the WAX argument, but standards for inclusion and sourcing aren't uniform across the other projects, and the English-language edition of Wikipedia has amongst the strictest sourcing requirements to my knowledge, especially for content about living people. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am making the argument of systematic bias, to which you have failed to respond, again.
 * You also seem to be repeating my point that enwiki has rigorous standards for WP:BLP. I was also making the point that if we incorporate WP:RS into this article, other Wikipediae can make use of them as well. Peaceray (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not addressing the argument of systemic bias because it doesn't help anything in an AfD discussion, and would be far better addressed by a massive, likely multi-year discussion. I'm not going to deny that Wikipedia has a systemic bias as a consequence of its userbase. However, it's really not a good argument to make when we're discussing a single article and whether or not it should be deleted based on its sourcing (as that is the deletion argument proffered by the nominator). If anything, the systemic bias makes it harder to actually read the sources - especially the offline sources people are attempting to point to - simply because the English-language Wikipedia doesn't have a whole lot of native speakers of Indonesian. I would imagine this is also a huge part of the reason as to why we don't have a lot of articles on Indonesian topics en generale. How do you propose we fix this, short of getting native Indonesian speakers to give a fuck? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I could do a mass message to some of the participants at Category:User id-N using Please see. My guess is that most native ID speakers are unaware of this discussion.
 * I have done this before for an article translated from Icelandic. I need a little time to prepare the target list. I prefer to avoid the casual editors, preferring to those in the category who are prolific editors, part of WP:ID, or who admins on idwiki or enwiki. I think I could get this done in the next 48 hours or so. Peaceray (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make notice and respect the fact there are Indonesian editors and Indonesian admins already here and some of them already expressed their opinions... I think, more would be required to bring consensus but they cannot be forced to give a f*** about wiki english, im sure some are even unaware of the discussion happening, and some are simply too busy with their wikipedia to even think of thinking to get headaches from being in these types of discussions but for the one willing to it, i guess more consensus needs to be brought up Amoeba69th (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: What's the likelihood that there are more in-depth sources in offline sources, and would they be worthwhile to cite in the article? (This is without prejudice to, and can potentially be read as in defence of, the two book sources Amoeba69th proffered above if the books go into more depth than the page previews allow.) —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 22:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: What's the likelihood that there are more in-depth sources in offline sources, and would they be worthwhile to cite in the article? (This is without prejudice to, and can potentially be read as in defence of, the two book sources Amoeba69th proffered above if the books go into more depth than the page previews allow.) —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 22:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PERX/WP:EVERYONEELSE. Pilaz (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: After comments . I was on the fence about the coverage of her actual career, but the variety of sources using her as an example of a phenomenon (women's image in media?) decides me. I think there's enough there to establish notability.   signed, Willondon (talk)  02:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - After looking at the sources offered here, I'm still not seeing enough biographical coverage to amount to notability. Yes, there is evidence that she is famous, but not that she meets the criteria for notability.  — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 20:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: to respond to Jeske regarding offline sources inquiry i'd like to show the fact there are many offline sources that were never digitized regarding this actress that was notorious in the 2000's. you can see a simple google reseach how many journals and magazines are still on sale featuring Azhari, and some of them for example the femina magazine describes her career in Indonesian sinetron. i do am sure however there's plenty more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it so damn hard to keep the at the very bottom of the page?
 * Them being digitised is irrelevant, as we do accept offline sources if properly cited (i.e. enough bibliographical information is provided to look the source up in an archive or library). This is also why your Google Books links weren't particularly helpful relative to a proper book cite, which needs (at minimum) all of the title, author, publisher, year of publication, pages being cited, and the ISBN/OCLC#. Google Books just heavily limits how many pages you can look at in a book preview, which in turn makes it kinda useless for actually trying to assess a book. Better to let someone who actually has access to the book cite it, as they can provide the relevant page numbers. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough sources Starship SN20 talk
 * which of the 18 sources provided are not proof of GNG? Amoeba69th (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Biografi and Works can be found also on which seems is a non user generated database (to reference not like IMBD) lets say....seems a bit outdated but it's updated daily... (there are some sources on the article not mentioned in this discussion, can i add them to match?) Amoeba69th (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.