Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symon (actor)


 * 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   keep. J04n(talk page) 23:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Symon (actor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, No reliable sources are there at all. Faizan  -  Let's talk!   13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.   Faizan   -  Let's talk!   13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Faizan   -  Let's talk!   13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.   Faizan   -  Let's talk!   13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Any of the films the actor has acted in don't have articles on them, either.  smt cha hal  (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to keep. The press media, no matter how seemingly un-notable, cannot be questioned for its reliability (not much in a literal sense). Besides, I did realise that WP:NACTOR was only an additional criteria, and if any of the criteria points are met, the topic is likely to be notable. Those newspapers do make worthy mentions of this actor and if so, the topic should be notable.  smt cha hal  talk 02:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR per sources. -- Zayeem (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I translated the source links to English using Google Translate and I got this. They don't very clearly assert significance of the topic, but just talk about other things and people while mentioning an actor called Simon (or Symon). Googling shows up absolutely nothing.
 * WP:NACTOR criteria:


 * 1) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Nope. None of the films are, by any means, notable or even mentioned clearly in any of the sources.
 * 2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. The sources don't say so.
 * 3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. This one is obviously false. The actor is not the main subject in any of the sources given.  smt cha hal  (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Everyone is well aware how effective Google translate is, I guess! Anyway, this is an indepth coverage talking about how the actor started his career. This one is talking about his recent films as well as praising his works. Films, where he acted as the lead hero, like Ji Huzur,Poramon have been big hits according to the sources. -- Zayeem (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I need to rely on you that those links indeed suggest that the person is notable, because Google Translate is not at all helpful for that and I don't know Bangla.  smt cha hal  (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Fails WP:RS, no sources are there at all to support WP:NACTOR.  Faizan   -  Let's talk!   12:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Kmzayeem is trying to assert that the given sources are reliable, and both of us clearly disagree. Three of the given sources show posts from the Bengali newspapers Manabzamin and Kaler Kantho, which might be considered to be reliable sources. However, the newspapers themselves are not very notable, as is apparent in the Wikipedia articles on them. One thing I know is, Google searches of the actor's name — both in English and Bengali — turn up nothing useful.  smt cha hal  (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is English Wikipedia, his article is welcome in Bengali WIkipedia, but if kept here, only with notable coverage in English. Bengali newspapers are not sufficient.  Faizan   -  Let's talk!   13:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia of the whole world written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the English-speaking world. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)}
 * User:Faizan Al-Badri, see the above comment by Phil and WP:NONENG! Smtchahal, the newspapers are widely circulated in Bangladesh, as for google search, the English search won't show up much since its a western name and most of the results would be of those from western countries. The google search in Bangla shows quite a few sources. Besides, you may seek translations from any of these Wikipedians.-- Zayeem (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  02:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete — Per nom, per SMT. I can't find significant coverage of him biographically (WP:ANYBIO), or any indication his roles were significant in any movie that might approach notability (WP:NACTOR). JFHJr (㊟) 20:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And what about the sources identified above? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * His films, Ji Huzur, Pora Mon are notable, per these sources, . -- Zayeem (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Still does not entirely suffice WP:NACTOR. Even not considering the fact that a few of those links don't work, the other sources don't suggest that the person has a large fan base; nor that he has made a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to the field of entertainment, which is acting in this case. All the sources suggest is that the actor has acted in a few films that are considerably notable, but by no means seem to assert that the actor has made significant contribution to the Bangladeshi film industry or that he has a large fan base or anything, so at least two of the WP:NACTOR criterion points are not met. Also, the reason why I think most of the newspapers are not notable themselves is that they do not have very significant independent coverage in other reliable sources (no reliable sources to support Samakal and Banglanews24.com, only two The Daily Star mentions for Kaler Kantho, one unsignificant mention of Manabzamin in Time magazine and although Prothom Alo has a lot of references in the article, very few of them are reliable) so the only sufficiently (yet insignificantly) reliable source I could consider is Prothom Alo. Also, it may be noted that The Daily Star itself may not be considered to be entirely independent of other newspapers, since it is also a Bangladeshi newspaper itself. Hence, even assuming that the Prothom Alo website is temporarily down and the links will start working soon, this article about Symon will have only one sufficiently reliable source to support that he is notable, which is not enough for keeping the article.  smt cha hal  talk 05:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that publications used as sources should themselves be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the requirement that publications as sources are reliable?  smt cha hal  talk 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the User:Smtchahal is a bit confused with the reliability of sources. He has also reasoned similar things in this AfD where he was countered by another user apart from me. The fact is you can't judge the newspapers of developing countries with WP:GNG as any significant coverages about newspapers in these countries are hard to come. We generally assume a source to be reliable when it's a third party source, independent from the subject, though more things might be considered when the subject is controversial. And about the actor, the article passes the first criterion of WP:NACTOR and have some significant coverages, enough to include in wikipedia. -- Zayeem (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This subject is apparently controversial. Besides, what do you think about the other two WP:NACTOR criteria? Because passing only one of the criteria is not enough; all of them are mandatory unless the subject is notable under WP:N.  smt cha hal  talk 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, one is enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing is controversial in this article. As I've mentioned before, the actor has significant coverages which passes WP:GNG. There is no need to pass all the criteria of WP:NACTOR, an actor can still be notable without making any unique, prolific or innovative contributions or having any cult following. -- Zayeem (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are sufficient. Even the G Translation makes it clear that he had major roles in at least some of the movies, and that's the usual practical standard. As Phil said, assertion that nonEnglish sources are unacceptable are just plain wrong. Assertions that all the N actor guideline considerations must be passed are also simply not correct  DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (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.