- 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. A discussion on whether to merge this with the draft or vice versa does not require continuation of this discussion since there's no case being made for outright deletion Star Mississippi 03:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Simba Nagpal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Draft article exists, so AFD is the only option. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, the current article is inadequate, but a brief search indicates that there is probably sufficient coverage in mainstream media to meet
WP:SIGCOV. One article in
The Indian Express,
[1] which is considered 'generally reliable' (
WP:INDIANEXP). Three articles in
The Times of India,
[2]
[3]
[4] which is considered to have a reliability 'between no consensus and generally unreliable' (
WP:TOI), but it might be adequate for supporting notability. One article in
Hindustan Times,
[5] not discussed in
WP:RSP, but it looks reasonably reliable. Two articles in
Eastern Eye,
[6]
[7] not discussed in
WP:RSP but it is a UK-based weekly newspaper that looks reliable. These articles have significant content on Simba Nagpal, not just 'name checks'. I have only looked at websites linked to English-language newspapers, as I find it difficult to assess the reliability of showbusiness websites and I don't understand other Indian languages. There is likely to be sufficient reliable media coverage because he has a main role in a long-running drama series on a major TV channel.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
16:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Verbcatcher , Are the sources you cite considered reliable? Some sources only mention Naagin 6. The rest of the sources are mentions of Fitness, Monsoon. Such sources every local artist gets coverage. PravinGanechari ( talk) 06:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ PravinGanechari:, I am not an expert on the reliability of Indian newspapers or websites and I have never visited India. I have indicated where these sources are mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Beyond that, my assessment of the sources is based on an assumption that newspapers and websites that are restrained and analytical in tone are more likely to be reliable than those that are more sensationalist in tone. It does not matter here whether these sources are mostly concerned with Nagpal's appearance in one show; I am trying to assess whether the WP:SIGCOV test is met rather than looking for sources to expand the article. Verbcatcher ( talk) 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also I looked at the Wikipedia articles on the sources linked above, which indicate that these are well-established sources that are likely to be staffed by professional journalists, and are not 'clickbait' sites that simply copy text from elsewhere.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
04:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Anything related to film or television in the Times of India I would throw out for notability.
Paid articles are a problem there, especially around film/television where studios use them to push shows and actors. I'll try to go through the sources in more detail, I know several were pretty bare mentions at best.
Ravensfire (
talk)
05:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Ravensfire: The
Paid news in India article indicates that this is not unique to the Times of India, and it appears to relate more to business people and their businesses rather than to actors. Can you provide an internal or external link this specifically addresses the issue for film and television? The issue has not led to TOI being classified as 'generally unreliable' or worse in
WP:RSP.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Start with the Paid News section in the main Times of India article [
[8]]. "where politicians, businessmen, corporations and celebrities can pay the newspaper and its journalists would carry the desired news for the payer", "TOI began the practice of "private treaties", also called as "brand capital", where new companies, individuals or movies seeking mass coverage and public relations". TOI is still generally regarded as reliable, but around tv/film, reviews are decent but the puff publicity is pretty much disregarded for notability. What is and is not paid for? TOI makes it impossible to tell and it's widespread enough that you cannot trust that anything from them is independent.
Ravensfire (
talk)
20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the archived WP:RSN discussions at
287#Times of India RFC and
320#The Times of India. These do not support your assertion that "you cannot trust that anything from them is independent", although a contributor to the second discussion made a distinction between the main newspaper website and their ETimes website, where the links above are. If you think that Times of India and/or ETimes should be considered unreliable for certain types of content then please start a discussion at
WP:RSN.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
21:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- The first discussion was NOT in favor of option one, generally reliable. It was between 2 and 3, which basically summarizes the points I've been making. The second RSN discussion was about political articles. Unless I'm really confused, that's not applicable here. I'm done here, I'm clearly not going to convince you and it's not worth the effort to try anymore when you're not looking very deep at the points you present. Shocking - another poor quality article related in Indian TV/Film with poor sources and paid journalism will stay. Why do I even bother.
Ravensfire (
talk)
05:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please do not react so defensively when someone challenges your assertions. I was attempting to discuss the reliability of the TOI sources, where your assessment does not match WP:RSP. The second RSN discussion is about non-political matters, see its first posting. You wrote earlier that you'd try to go through the sources in more detail – have you assessed other sources that I linked? These are not "pretty bare mentions" but are articles about Nagpal. Have you made a Google News search? There are thousands of results, but you probably need to be selective to find the reliable ones. Verbcatcher ( talk) 20:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- The first discussion was NOT in favor of option one, generally reliable. It was between 2 and 3, which basically summarizes the points I've been making. The second RSN discussion was about political articles. Unless I'm really confused, that's not applicable here. I'm done here, I'm clearly not going to convince you and it's not worth the effort to try anymore when you're not looking very deep at the points you present. Shocking - another poor quality article related in Indian TV/Film with poor sources and paid journalism will stay. Why do I even bother.
Ravensfire (
talk)
05:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the archived WP:RSN discussions at
287#Times of India RFC and
320#The Times of India. These do not support your assertion that "you cannot trust that anything from them is independent", although a contributor to the second discussion made a distinction between the main newspaper website and their ETimes website, where the links above are. If you think that Times of India and/or ETimes should be considered unreliable for certain types of content then please start a discussion at
WP:RSN.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
21:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Start with the Paid News section in the main Times of India article [
[8]]. "where politicians, businessmen, corporations and celebrities can pay the newspaper and its journalists would carry the desired news for the payer", "TOI began the practice of "private treaties", also called as "brand capital", where new companies, individuals or movies seeking mass coverage and public relations". TOI is still generally regarded as reliable, but around tv/film, reviews are decent but the puff publicity is pretty much disregarded for notability. What is and is not paid for? TOI makes it impossible to tell and it's widespread enough that you cannot trust that anything from them is independent.
Ravensfire (
talk)
20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Ravensfire: The
Paid news in India article indicates that this is not unique to the Times of India, and it appears to relate more to business people and their businesses rather than to actors. Can you provide an internal or external link this specifically addresses the issue for film and television? The issue has not led to TOI being classified as 'generally unreliable' or worse in
WP:RSP.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Anything related to film or television in the Times of India I would throw out for notability.
Paid articles are a problem there, especially around film/television where studios use them to push shows and actors. I'll try to go through the sources in more detail, I know several were pretty bare mentions at best.
Ravensfire (
talk)
05:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to Draft:Simba Nagpal, with which it should be merged. Verbcatcher ( talk) 16:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shikagami03 will inform this discussion. A further sock farm also has an interest in it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanpedia. Put plain, there is something that smells unpleasant about articles on this actor 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm actually interested about the "sockpuppet" accusation. Already ready with my popcorn. Waiting for the final verdict XD Rejoy2003 ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Draft:Simba Nagpal as of now since the subject does not meet WP:ENT. ManaliJain ( talk) 04:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: The actor has leading roles in his both shows as required according to WP:NACTOR. Pri2000 ( talk) 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: there is little in Draft:Simba Nagpal that could usefully be added to the main space article W:Simba Nagpal, the main difference being the unsourced 'Early life and education' section. So either keep the main space article and delete the draft article, or move the main space article to draft space, overwriting the existing draft. Verbcatcher ( talk) 13:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: As said by some of the editors above, that the actor has significant coverage and notability. He has done several shows and is currently into a leading role in a famous hindi television series. Lastly the article can't be merged with it's draft as it seems to be deleted by a major contributor. Rejoy2003 ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are a number of different options suggested here. I'm surprised to see this back at AFD so soon after its first nomination but I guess it didn't stay a redirect for long.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on the analysis in the first "keep" vote above. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I also feel that the actor should be on article page as said by some of the editors above, he has his own significant coverage and notability. Currently working in Popular Channels show and also appeared in some reality shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShokLionYt ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 August 2022 (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.
- 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. A discussion on whether to merge this with the draft or vice versa does not require continuation of this discussion since there's no case being made for outright deletion Star Mississippi 03:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Simba Nagpal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Draft article exists, so AFD is the only option. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, the current article is inadequate, but a brief search indicates that there is probably sufficient coverage in mainstream media to meet
WP:SIGCOV. One article in
The Indian Express,
[1] which is considered 'generally reliable' (
WP:INDIANEXP). Three articles in
The Times of India,
[2]
[3]
[4] which is considered to have a reliability 'between no consensus and generally unreliable' (
WP:TOI), but it might be adequate for supporting notability. One article in
Hindustan Times,
[5] not discussed in
WP:RSP, but it looks reasonably reliable. Two articles in
Eastern Eye,
[6]
[7] not discussed in
WP:RSP but it is a UK-based weekly newspaper that looks reliable. These articles have significant content on Simba Nagpal, not just 'name checks'. I have only looked at websites linked to English-language newspapers, as I find it difficult to assess the reliability of showbusiness websites and I don't understand other Indian languages. There is likely to be sufficient reliable media coverage because he has a main role in a long-running drama series on a major TV channel.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
16:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Verbcatcher , Are the sources you cite considered reliable? Some sources only mention Naagin 6. The rest of the sources are mentions of Fitness, Monsoon. Such sources every local artist gets coverage. PravinGanechari ( talk) 06:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ PravinGanechari:, I am not an expert on the reliability of Indian newspapers or websites and I have never visited India. I have indicated where these sources are mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Beyond that, my assessment of the sources is based on an assumption that newspapers and websites that are restrained and analytical in tone are more likely to be reliable than those that are more sensationalist in tone. It does not matter here whether these sources are mostly concerned with Nagpal's appearance in one show; I am trying to assess whether the WP:SIGCOV test is met rather than looking for sources to expand the article. Verbcatcher ( talk) 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also I looked at the Wikipedia articles on the sources linked above, which indicate that these are well-established sources that are likely to be staffed by professional journalists, and are not 'clickbait' sites that simply copy text from elsewhere.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
04:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Anything related to film or television in the Times of India I would throw out for notability.
Paid articles are a problem there, especially around film/television where studios use them to push shows and actors. I'll try to go through the sources in more detail, I know several were pretty bare mentions at best.
Ravensfire (
talk)
05:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Ravensfire: The
Paid news in India article indicates that this is not unique to the Times of India, and it appears to relate more to business people and their businesses rather than to actors. Can you provide an internal or external link this specifically addresses the issue for film and television? The issue has not led to TOI being classified as 'generally unreliable' or worse in
WP:RSP.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Start with the Paid News section in the main Times of India article [
[8]]. "where politicians, businessmen, corporations and celebrities can pay the newspaper and its journalists would carry the desired news for the payer", "TOI began the practice of "private treaties", also called as "brand capital", where new companies, individuals or movies seeking mass coverage and public relations". TOI is still generally regarded as reliable, but around tv/film, reviews are decent but the puff publicity is pretty much disregarded for notability. What is and is not paid for? TOI makes it impossible to tell and it's widespread enough that you cannot trust that anything from them is independent.
Ravensfire (
talk)
20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the archived WP:RSN discussions at
287#Times of India RFC and
320#The Times of India. These do not support your assertion that "you cannot trust that anything from them is independent", although a contributor to the second discussion made a distinction between the main newspaper website and their ETimes website, where the links above are. If you think that Times of India and/or ETimes should be considered unreliable for certain types of content then please start a discussion at
WP:RSN.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
21:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- The first discussion was NOT in favor of option one, generally reliable. It was between 2 and 3, which basically summarizes the points I've been making. The second RSN discussion was about political articles. Unless I'm really confused, that's not applicable here. I'm done here, I'm clearly not going to convince you and it's not worth the effort to try anymore when you're not looking very deep at the points you present. Shocking - another poor quality article related in Indian TV/Film with poor sources and paid journalism will stay. Why do I even bother.
Ravensfire (
talk)
05:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please do not react so defensively when someone challenges your assertions. I was attempting to discuss the reliability of the TOI sources, where your assessment does not match WP:RSP. The second RSN discussion is about non-political matters, see its first posting. You wrote earlier that you'd try to go through the sources in more detail – have you assessed other sources that I linked? These are not "pretty bare mentions" but are articles about Nagpal. Have you made a Google News search? There are thousands of results, but you probably need to be selective to find the reliable ones. Verbcatcher ( talk) 20:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- The first discussion was NOT in favor of option one, generally reliable. It was between 2 and 3, which basically summarizes the points I've been making. The second RSN discussion was about political articles. Unless I'm really confused, that's not applicable here. I'm done here, I'm clearly not going to convince you and it's not worth the effort to try anymore when you're not looking very deep at the points you present. Shocking - another poor quality article related in Indian TV/Film with poor sources and paid journalism will stay. Why do I even bother.
Ravensfire (
talk)
05:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the archived WP:RSN discussions at
287#Times of India RFC and
320#The Times of India. These do not support your assertion that "you cannot trust that anything from them is independent", although a contributor to the second discussion made a distinction between the main newspaper website and their ETimes website, where the links above are. If you think that Times of India and/or ETimes should be considered unreliable for certain types of content then please start a discussion at
WP:RSN.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
21:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Start with the Paid News section in the main Times of India article [
[8]]. "where politicians, businessmen, corporations and celebrities can pay the newspaper and its journalists would carry the desired news for the payer", "TOI began the practice of "private treaties", also called as "brand capital", where new companies, individuals or movies seeking mass coverage and public relations". TOI is still generally regarded as reliable, but around tv/film, reviews are decent but the puff publicity is pretty much disregarded for notability. What is and is not paid for? TOI makes it impossible to tell and it's widespread enough that you cannot trust that anything from them is independent.
Ravensfire (
talk)
20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Ravensfire: The
Paid news in India article indicates that this is not unique to the Times of India, and it appears to relate more to business people and their businesses rather than to actors. Can you provide an internal or external link this specifically addresses the issue for film and television? The issue has not led to TOI being classified as 'generally unreliable' or worse in
WP:RSP.
Verbcatcher (
talk)
19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Anything related to film or television in the Times of India I would throw out for notability.
Paid articles are a problem there, especially around film/television where studios use them to push shows and actors. I'll try to go through the sources in more detail, I know several were pretty bare mentions at best.
Ravensfire (
talk)
05:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to Draft:Simba Nagpal, with which it should be merged. Verbcatcher ( talk) 16:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shikagami03 will inform this discussion. A further sock farm also has an interest in it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanpedia. Put plain, there is something that smells unpleasant about articles on this actor 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm actually interested about the "sockpuppet" accusation. Already ready with my popcorn. Waiting for the final verdict XD Rejoy2003 ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Draft:Simba Nagpal as of now since the subject does not meet WP:ENT. ManaliJain ( talk) 04:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: The actor has leading roles in his both shows as required according to WP:NACTOR. Pri2000 ( talk) 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: there is little in Draft:Simba Nagpal that could usefully be added to the main space article W:Simba Nagpal, the main difference being the unsourced 'Early life and education' section. So either keep the main space article and delete the draft article, or move the main space article to draft space, overwriting the existing draft. Verbcatcher ( talk) 13:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: As said by some of the editors above, that the actor has significant coverage and notability. He has done several shows and is currently into a leading role in a famous hindi television series. Lastly the article can't be merged with it's draft as it seems to be deleted by a major contributor. Rejoy2003 ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are a number of different options suggested here. I'm surprised to see this back at AFD so soon after its first nomination but I guess it didn't stay a redirect for long.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on the analysis in the first "keep" vote above. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I also feel that the actor should be on article page as said by some of the editors above, he has his own significant coverage and notability. Currently working in Popular Channels show and also appeared in some reality shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShokLionYt ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 August 2022 (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.