Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiba Ali Khan

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Ali Khan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another BLP on a non-notable actress created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Under the general notability guideline, it's not the perceived prestige, in the eyes of us as editors, of a film, show, or or performer (which is subjective; e. g., one of the linked sources calls Khan a prolific actor) that confers notability; rather, notability comes from coverage in secondary sources. The article already cites sources that focus on Khan (e. g. [1], [2], [3]). I noticed other hits when I keyword-searched with Google, and this is just considering English language sources without getting into the probability of other language sources. By way of aside, the text of this AfD's OP is nearly identical to another AfD Saqib nominated on the same day. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we evaluating based on policy WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR or merely on some press coverage and appearances in dramas? No one is questioning her status as an actor, as she has indeed appeared in dramas. However, the crucial question is whether she has had significant roles. I don't see that. Now one might question why she receives press coverage if she doesn't have significant roles. It's important to note that national news channels such as ARY, GEO and others, are also associated with the production and promotion of these dramas, so they often invite the cast onto their TV shows, resulting in news articles in their news websites based on these TV appearances. While ARY news story may label her a prolific actor, this alone doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Additionally, we should be cautious about relying on the websites of Pakistani national news channels, as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and regularly publish sensational and tabloid-like content for increased traffic. As far I can see coverage in Urdu language, while available, also tends to lean towards gossip and sensationalism. And the identical text across my AfD nominations shouldn't be an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up WP:NEWSORGINDIA; however, that subsection of WP:RSP specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight, etc. The consensus isn't about all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to this discussion - commencing from the comment by ActivelyDisinterested at 16:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC). —Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ActivelyDisinterested's advice to be cautious about ProPakistan.pk is duly noted, but their comment doesn't seem to be about all news publications in Pakistan, and Sheriff contested the characterizations of even just ProPakistan.pk. Three editors who seem to have brought three different opinions doesn't seem like a ringing consensus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrangeans, OK - I do not want to delve into the details of what constitutes a RS or not, as this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. Let's keep it simple. so here are my final thoughts. As we can see, the actor clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG because it requires sig/in-depth coverage. And if look at this from the perspective of NACTOR, the actor only had a lead role in one TV show, Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) and in the rest of the shows, she only played MINOR roles. I deleted some because they were either based on WP:OR or cited using clearly unreliable sources that can't even be used for WP:V purposes. So, as I mentioned, the actor had a lead role in " Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) but when one does a Google search, there is no sig/ in-depth coverage about this show, indicating that it is not a significant work. Yes, it has a WP article, but so do hundreds of other TV shows created by UPEs. However, this show clearly does not meet the threshold of significance, which means the subject fails to meet NACTOR, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant. If you still like, I am happy to discuss further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight." The rule can be applied to the Indian subcontinent and all media therein. Note that a lot of media in one country is served in other countries in that are. A border does not negate the fact that the region has a history of paid media such as these. The "certain kinds of articles" apply and the "certain publications" are only examples. Creating a listing of ALL publications that do so would be exhaustive. These are just examples and we need to use common sense when applying the rule. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiba's is a notable actress and she is recently working in drama Shiddat and Rah-e-Junoon.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support your claims. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on general notability. The AfD appears to be partially motivated by some personal gripe Saqib has with the article's original creator. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't have any issues with the person who created the page. But could you please share some coverage that fits WP:GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet and little policy-based opinions stated in this discussion. Yes, there have been run-ins between editors in this subject area but can this discussion focus on the merits of this standalone article and not on the perceived motivations of any or all discussion participants? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source are interviews, based on what she says or brief mentions. The other issue is when I look at the articles about the shows listed in the filmography to see if any sources have info about Khan, I am finding those articles are also poorly sourced. For example, the sources used for Kitni Girhain Baaki Hain are not about the show and are only brief mentions. That's just one but I looked at a few. If anyone comes up with a couple RS that has in-depth coverage about Khan, please ping me. S0091 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I searched for sources with in-depth coverage of the subject but found only interviews with some passing mentions, which can't establish notability at all as per WP:GNG. She also fails WP:NACTOR as she did not have a significant role in a notable film. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For someone with so many listed roles, I initially assumed there would be a ton of references available. However, there are not. And, the ones that do exist simply verify roles but do not add up to significant coverage. They are interviews, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Note that WP:NACTOR only presumes notability for certain roles, but does not guarantee notability. It is still based on sourcing. Here are the references currently on the page:

The News International, an interview which is not considered independent.

ARY News, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA but it does include a video of an interview she gave. Unfortunately, it is still an interview and the information is not considered indepdent.

Dawn, mentions her as part of the cast. Verifies role but verifiability is not notability.

ARY News, same as the ARY News assessment above.

City 42, announcement of her marriage. It does say she changed her name but searching that name found no references suitable to show notability.

Dawn, another one that mentions her name to verify a role, but does not talk about her outside of that. Brief mention only.

Daily Times, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA, but even if disputed, it still only verifies a role. Her name is mentioned one time. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.