Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharifah Sofia


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn in light of sources found.. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sharifah Sofia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ENT. no extensive career. mainly passing mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject of significant coverage here that also indicates she would pass WP:ENT for her roles in a feature movie and ten television dramas. Many of these sources demonstrate the depth of her roles in various television and film productions. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per notable there is notable here. Sure, it will be a bit tough to find western coverage for a Malaysian actress, but with respects to the nominator, that's a reason to try harder, not throw it out.  Suggest help be requested of WP:WikiProject Malaysia and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the Malay article before nominating, complete lack of sources there. If it has a well developed Malay article, I would not have nominated it. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. A single failure to find news in a recent gnews archive is not equivalent to lack of notability.  WP:SEARCHHARDER.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * gnews archive covers from 1800 I think. I did not search recent gnews. please demonstrate which sources prove WP:ENT or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As above, how does a feature film and 10 television dramas take your fancy for WP:ENT (let alone [[WP:GNG)? here?--[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT says significant roles. Minor roles are not included, you could have 20 minor roles but doesn't satisfy WP:ENT. and it is difficult to verify the significance of roles. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely assume from the feature articles about her in national newspapers that she is no bit player. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * that is 1 article. still doesn't prove the extent of her roles. otherwise you're using synthesis of sources. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are her productions: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Pelakon utama means main actor; pelakon pembantu means supporting actor. Criticism of nominator deleted from here by self to avoid any hint of a personal attack. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:NPA. if such information appeared her non referenced Malay article it would have helped me decide to nominate or not. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Toughen up there and take some deserved criticism constructively. You've wasted a lot of people's time today with four ill-considered nominations. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept the result of any consensus. if this means articles get improved and kept, then that's good for WP. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right in one respect: the best outcome of an AfD is a better article gets kept. But that's no reason to nominate weakly sourced articles for deletion without properly applying WP:BEFORE. That just wastes everyone's time. In future, if you have problems with the sourcing of Malaysian-related articles, I'd be happy to help as a member of WP:Wikiproject Malaysia. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2010 (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.