Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VaniBhojan


 * 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. This debate really covers two separate things. First, is the subject notable. Second, what to do about the improper way this article was created.

Starting with notability, I am going to review the comments that directly reference notability or some sort of notability guideline, including GNG or NACTOR. To delete: 3 and to keep: 6. (There is also a delete "per Narky Blert" and a keep "per above" that I didn’t count, they would cancel out anyway. The other comments are the nominator (who only links a previous AfD) and two users who suggest speedy deletion on grounds unrelated to notability.) One side says they pass NACTOR the other side says they fail GNG. Both sides raise valid policy-based arguments, so we have a rough consensus that the article subject is notable.

The second matter to consider is what to do about the recreation – there are several users expressing that the article should be speedy deleted, and one voting to draftify. Ultimately there is no policy reason why this article can be speedy deleted, or it would have happened at some point in the last two weeks. With only one person suggesting to draftify, which presumably the keep !voters would oppose, there is no consensus for that outcome either.

So in my judgment, the consensus is to Keep. I will move the article to the correct title after processing the AfD close. ST47 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

VaniBhojan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See Articles for deletion/Vani Bhojan Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete All you have to do is put db-G4 inside –  at the top of the page. Trillfendi (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the nominator declined the G4 correctly as the versions are different Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as G4 does not apply as the 2014 AFD version did not include her later series including the lead role in a 720 episode national television series and she has also had the lead in another 1400 episode tv series as well as being one of the judges on two notable reality tv series so clearly passes WP:NACTOR criteria 1 (only one criteria needed), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep subject appears to have gotten continued coverage since the deletion discussion in 2014, such coverage is the core of notability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. None of the citations is specifically about her. WP:NACTOR does not override WP:GNG, with its requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis in the original). "[S]ubject appears to have gotten continued coverage" is no substitute for actual citations. The most comprehensive source in the article is IMDb, which is not WP:RS. The best sources turned up by a WP:BEFORE search were this and this, such as they are; neither StarsUnfolded nor BehindTalkies has a Wikipedia article, which throws their value into question. Her principal claim to notability would seem to be having twice won a Sun Kudumbam Viruthugal award; but as those are in-house awards by Sun TV for Sun TV, their power to confer notability is also open to question.
 * I am voting 'weak delete' only because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in reverse: it seems unfair to single out for deletion this particular biography from the many others of subcontinental actors and actresses which are at least as thin. The whole area of film and TV on the Subcontinent in English Wikipedia is an undrained swamp. Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * delete per Narky Blert. WP:NACTOR does not override WP:GNG. All the sources I could find were non-reliable sources, mostly telly-sites or gossip sites. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NACTOR. #1 Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please specify the citation(s) on which you rely. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep passes the subject specific guideline for actors. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states you have to pass EITHER the general notability guidelines OR one of the subject specific guidelines, not both.  Not sure why some still get that confused.    D r e a m Focus  02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please specify the citation(s) on which you rely. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She also meets WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." She had significant roles to be eligible for best actress award.  D r e a m Focus  22:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Narky Blert. Furthermore, looking at the two "best" sources he found, both look like they are populated by information the actress gave rather than by information the source dug up and verified. They might have rigorous fact checking, but they are twigging all my "bad website" alarms. Rockphed (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * keep. While it is true that the article is currently horrible written and lacks sufficient sources, she nevertheless clearly passes WP:NACTOR and the Indian media seems to have quite a number of articles on her (the Times of India alone has a selection:, also , , ). Not all or even none of these articles are particular in-depth, but probably enough to compile a short article and to illustrate notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and block or at the very least sternly warn the creator, with no prejudice against good-faith recreation through standard procedures. This title has been salted twice (once in 2015 and once earlier this year), and Iamarjunkumar knew it. I also very much suspect the current article is a copy-paste recreation of an earlier version of the article given that when created the filmography ended in 2015: can you confirm or deny this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also not be opposed to draftifying and salting the current title like the last two titles (with the additional reason that this is perhaps not even useful as a redirect). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Narky Blert and Hijiri88 the article was deleted 9 times 6 times here and 3 times here twice in AFD  fails WP:GNG and now feel it may be copy paste of a previous version through not sure.Now the award Sun Kudumbam Viruthugal award to her was given by Sun TV (India) given to actors of its channel alone and is a inhouse award.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. On my university library site I found this article "Vaibhav-VaniBhojan's film titled 'Kallam Karka'.", The Times of India, August 28, 2019. She was critically reviewed in a lead role in a film just last month. With the other sources provided, she passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So ... you advocate sneaking around creation protection and violating BLP in the process (Google now thinks she is mononymous because of our current article title!) just because the subject may be notable enough to merit a separate article? That's great, and I would support you or anyone else creating a new article on her and putting it through AFC so an admin can review it and move it into the mainspace, but what happened here was a gross violation of our standard procedure, and you surely recognize that fact. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Hijiri88, I'm not really sure what you are referring to. My comment was not a commentary on anything but the quality of sources meeting WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I really wasn't doing anything in my review but commenting in that capacity. I didn't realize there was some sort of unusual history with this article. I hadn't even read Pharaoh of the Wizards' comments until just now. I often just look at the article in it's current state and start hunting for sources to prove SIGCOV and GNG or not without reading others comments first. I like to form my own impressions.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice the title that was deliberately misspelled to game the system? The fact that the article had been recreated against consensus about a half-dozen times under different titles? In cases like this, notability doesn't really matter; an admin's express permission is needed to recreate the article at its proper title, and that was not done. And I wasn't referring to PotW's comment -- I said pretty much the same thing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't until you just pointed it out. I assumed it was just needing a page move due to innocent human error. My usefulness at AFD is usually in finding good independent references which is what is needed in most cases. And occassionally I clean up articles. I wasn't aware of the drama at work in this case until you pinged me. I stopped reading after Narky Blert (because I went into article rescue mode to find better sources), so I missed your comment as well.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closer All of the "keep" !votes except Hyperbolic (who didn't provide a rationale), and even some of the "delete" !votes, have been focused on the notability of this topic. Assuming good faith on their part, it would seem that there is something of a consensus that this topic is notable. However, the bigger issue here is the repeated disruptive recreation and attempting to get around creation protection by using a deliberately misspelled title. When I Google this actress's name, the first result now is English Wikipedia with its claim that her name is "VaniBhojan", which is borderline BLP-violation in that some Wikipedia editor has effectively changed the way this person's name appears on search engines in order to get around the previous salting. It seems highly likely that the creator of the current page is related to the creators of the 2014, 2015, and January 2019 pages. This kind of disruptive editing is, in my view and no doubt the view of most Wikipedians, totally unacceptable and of far greater short-term importance than GNG and NACTOR (both of which are guidelines, not policies). I would therefore urge you to weigh "notability-based" arguments in relation to the other issues of gaming the system through deliberate mistitling, violating previous consensus and administrative action, and even potential sockpuppetry. I for one, and probably several of the other "delete" !votes, would be happy to support recreating this page based on the apparent consensus that the topic is notable, but that is really not what is at issue in this discussion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:05, 30 September 2019 (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.