Bhumika Gurung – Unprotected. The DRV nominator,
Commonedits(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), is now blocked indefinitely because of personal attacks, so perhaps the review request could be considered moot. Nonetheless, the other contributors here agree that because of new sources a new article might be possible, and that the page protection should therefore be lifted. This allows interested editors (but not Commonedits or any sock of theirs as long as they remain blocked) to submit a new draft for review or to write a new article directly. Sandstein 09:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Please review the deletion of
Bhumika Gurung. It was deleted back in 2018 and later protected with a note saying to ask here to recreate the page. I've created
Draft:Bhumika Gurung and while it's been rejected several times by reviewers previously, It seems like a
WP:BURDEN of proof has fallen disproportiontely on some of the editors like me who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking rejection can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed).
I feel I've addressed all the issues which lead to deletion of the article of
Bhumika Gurung back in 2018. Also, Gurung meets the
WP:NACTOR criteria. She's played lead roles in multiple television shows, starting in
Nimki Mukhiya (TV series) for nearly two years(
[1])(
[2]), and it's follow-on show
Nimki Vidhayak (
[3]) and also in ‘’Humkadam’’(
[4]) She's had a significant role in
Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2 (
[5]) and she's currently playing lead in Hara Sindoor.(
[6]). The article has good sources that support these significant roles as well as the other roles she's played and some basic details about her personal life. Please review my draft as I think it's ready to be moved to the main article.
Commonedits (
talk)
17:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)reply
1 This is an interview, and all of the content is direct from Bhumika. It therefore fails the GNG as it is not independent of Bhumika.
2 This is almost good, but it is a bit promotional, and worse, there is not enough depth of coverage. See
WP:100W, which although just an essay it reflects how people will judge this source.
3 On excluding Bhumika's direct quote, there is virtually nothing said about Bhumika.
These are not terrible sources, but I think none contain enough coverage of the subject to be called significant. Quotes from the subject herself cannot count as independent coverage of the subject. If these three are the best, she is not Wikipedia-notable. I suggest that you instead work at
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8779797/. That is a much better site for covering her, and it is currently very thin.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
13:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)reply
These are not terrible sources, but I think none contain enough coverage of the subject to be called significant.SmokeyJoe, Sir there are twenty other sources among which I'm sure there are enough which contain sufficient coverage of the subject to be called significant and for that you will have to review the whole draft.
If these three are the best, she is not Wikipedia-notable. Sir, honestly, I do not know which are the best
WP:THREE. I humbly request you to please review my draft, I'm hundred percent sure that after reviewing it you will surely find out that Bhumika Gurung is notable to have an independent Wikipedia article.
I suggest that you instead work at
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8779797/. That is a much better site for covering her, and it is currently very thin. Sir, please have some empathy for my
WP:BURDENed condition. I have been torchered brutally by this draft's earlier reviewers, who rejected it without even reading the sources. I am done all my best to make this an original wikipedia article and have been working hard on her article since January 2022.
Sir, please, please, please I beg of you please do not repeat what the earlier reviewers did to me. The last reviewer who had reviewed the draft had not even read or verified any of the reliable sources in the article and he had simply rejected the draft with no valid reasons in such a way that I can't even re-submit it for review. He had treated me very cruelly Sir.
Are you being paid to get the article into mainspace? Why care so much for a Wikipedia article and so little for the IMDB biography?
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
01:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
SmokeyJoeAre you being paid to get the article into mainspace? No I'm neither being paid nor a sockpuppet. You can check my records to verify the same. I'm an ardent fan of Bhumika Gurung and I create
WP:BLPs of all the actors whom I am a fan of.
Honestly, can't I ask the same question? Were the reviewers who reviewed this draft very UNFAIRLY being PAID not to allow this article into the mainspace?
Why care so much for a Wikipedia article and so little for the IMDB biography? Because I have been working on this draft since last January and been subjected to extreme tremendous torcher all throughout. Every petty editor will want his/her hardwork to bear fruits and so is me.
I have worked extremely hard on this draft and made it the best suitable form possible. I have gone through extreme pains when the reviewers rejected it simply for very invalid reasons . And what is wrong in having an article on the actress in Wikipedia when she's fully eligible passing both
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG?
Commonedits (
talk)
02:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am probably too
involved to !vote. There was an article on the subject in 2017. The article was nominated for deletion in March 2018, and was closed as Redirect on 17 March 2018. The article was then repeatedly restored by sockpuppets. On 3 July 2019, the redirect was fully protected with an edit summary that
Deletion Review would be required to unprotect. The appellant submitted a version of the draft in March 2022. I declined the draft on 23 March 2022. The appellant resubmitted the draft, and it was declined by
User:Theroadislong. The appellant then resubmitted the draft, and I Rejected the draft on 15 June 2022. I rejected the draft partly because I could not accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it, and so I did not provide a detailed review. (The appellant stripped the AFC history on submitting the DRV. Some of the AFC history was restored, but some of it is still missing.) I am the reviewer whom the appellant is attacking for not providing a detailed review. The appellant then came here to
DRV on 27 June 2022. See
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 27. The appellant was then blocked while the DRV was open, so the DRV was procedurally closed with the note that the appellant could submit a new DRV request when they came off block. This is that new Deletion Review request.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
00:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If only the AfC history were recorded on the draft talk page, editors could be sanctioned for hiding. Unfortunately with AfC history and comments on the draft proper, it’s removal can be easily justified as an improvement to the draft.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If only the AfC history were recorded on the draft talk page, editors could be sanctioned for hiding. Unfortunately with AfC history and comments on the draft proper, it’s removal can be easily justified as an improvement to the draft.
SmokeyJoe I am not hiding anything nor am I trying to attack anyone! As I have already said several times, I have been subjected to extreme tremendous torcher all throughout while working with this draft. It was as if the reviewers were playing a game with my emotions and with my hardwork! And that's why I am venting out all my pains here!
Commonedits (
talk)
02:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I think you care too much about Bhumika, and this makes you unsuitable to be the leading person pushing for an article. Good editors are not so emotional.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
SmokeyJoeI think you care too much about Bhumika No I care too much about the efforts I put into the articles be it
Bhumika Gurung or
Pravisht Mishra or
Anchal Sahu. There's a lot of time and energy put in behind those efforts and like any other editor, I too expect the good results of all those efforts.
And I ask once again what is wrong in having an article on the actress who passed
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG?
Good editors are not so emotional. Being emotional is not my choice, it's a part of my character which makes me who I am and differentiates me from the others.
Commonedits (
talk)
05:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If editing wikipedia is causing you significant emotional distress, then I'm sorry to say that it may be best for you to take a break. I am not able to confirm a GNG pass at this time, and a
WP:REFBOMB significantly impedes any reviewer from doing so in a reasonable amount of time. This is why we ask for
WP:THREE. Effort doesn't guarantee an article — if you need help in understanding what constitutes significant coverage, we can help, but unless you can provide 3 sources that definitely meet our criteria (not buried in a list of 23 on the draft or however many on the internet, but 3, right here, right now) then unfortunately there is very little any of us can do to help you here.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
08:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Reviewer time is limited. You may be waiting for up to 4 months even if the current backlog shrinks slightly, or more if the backlog grows.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
08:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
It has been reviewed and found to not pass the NACTOR of GNG guidelines. I asked for THREE, he provided THREE, I reviewed them as, while not terrible, not one of them meets the GNG standard.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
23:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Procedural Close again. - If no one else is requesting that we unprotect the redirect except for the appellant, and he doesn't know how to present a case without getting blocked, we can close this, which leaves the redirect locked and in place.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. Ig, the consensus happened three years ago in 2019 and at that moment, Bhumika Gurung did not pass WP: NACTOR but now she does which should be considered.---
Creativitylove (
talk)
07:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
We are working on the draft talk page to collect the evidence of meeting NACTOR. This requires multiple articles to include her as main cast, and is not really a question of sourcing. Working through this is not a DRV matter, the old AfD is still to be endorsed, for the decision being correct at the time it was made.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
User:SmokeyJoe - I respectfully disagree with your statement that "Working through this is not a DRV matter". We are here because the protecting admin,
User:ST47, wrote:
Protecting redirect as a result of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumika Gurung,
WP:DELREV is required to re-create this page. That is why we are here. That is one of the reasons, besides the surplus of low-quality sources, why I wouldn't review the draft. I couldn't have accepted the draft even if I wanted to, and I wouldn't even be able to request an administrator to delete the redirect to make way for the article, because the redirect said that
DRV was required. So we are here. We do have to review the draft, or to decline to review it, or to ask to change the tagging of the redirect. Working through this really is a DRV matter, until we change the tagging of the redirect.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SmokeyJoe: I actually think just an overly-intense fan who dusted off an older account after I blocked the newer one. Can't say for sure, but 4 NPA blocks doesn't really match the UPE M.O. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Restore and list at AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumika Gurung was closed as "redirect" in March 2018. The DRV nominator has presented evidence that four years later, the subject has received new acting roles and has been covered by media sources published after March 2018. This is enough for
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion to no longer apply because the policy "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I am supporting a restore and relist at AfD so that the community can discuss the subject's notability again. I am supporting this even though the nominator has been blocked, even though I have not formed an opinion about whether the subject is notable, and even though I am not familiar with the topic area and the reliability of the sources. G4 does not apply, and four years is enough time to revisit whether there should be a standalone article. This revisiting and the analysis of the sources should be done at AfD.
Cunard (
talk)
09:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotect - I agree with
User:Cunard's rationale and with their reservations. However, I don't see what we would be discussing at AFD. So I think it is sufficient to lift the protection and to allow a good-faith neutral editor to submit a draft for review. AFD normally considers an actual article. What does Cunard want to list? The deleted article, the draft, or what?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The DRV nominator is blocked so they would not be able to present their case at AfD for why the subject is notable. So instead of having DRV restore the article and list it at AfD, I am also fine with your suggestion of just unprotecting
Bhumika Gurung and allowing any good faith editor to restore the draft to mainspace.
Cunard (
talk)
09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
UnprotectBhumika Gurung. New roles, with sources, overcome the reasons for redirection in the 2019 AfD. I think the subject can be shown to meet NACTOR, although some cleanup of the draft is needed. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
14:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Bhumika Gurung – Unprotected. The DRV nominator,
Commonedits(
talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), is now blocked indefinitely because of personal attacks, so perhaps the review request could be considered moot. Nonetheless, the other contributors here agree that because of new sources a new article might be possible, and that the page protection should therefore be lifted. This allows interested editors (but not Commonedits or any sock of theirs as long as they remain blocked) to submit a new draft for review or to write a new article directly. Sandstein 09:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Please review the deletion of
Bhumika Gurung. It was deleted back in 2018 and later protected with a note saying to ask here to recreate the page. I've created
Draft:Bhumika Gurung and while it's been rejected several times by reviewers previously, It seems like a
WP:BURDEN of proof has fallen disproportiontely on some of the editors like me who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking rejection can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed).
I feel I've addressed all the issues which lead to deletion of the article of
Bhumika Gurung back in 2018. Also, Gurung meets the
WP:NACTOR criteria. She's played lead roles in multiple television shows, starting in
Nimki Mukhiya (TV series) for nearly two years(
[1])(
[2]), and it's follow-on show
Nimki Vidhayak (
[3]) and also in ‘’Humkadam’’(
[4]) She's had a significant role in
Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2 (
[5]) and she's currently playing lead in Hara Sindoor.(
[6]). The article has good sources that support these significant roles as well as the other roles she's played and some basic details about her personal life. Please review my draft as I think it's ready to be moved to the main article.
Commonedits (
talk)
17:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)reply
1 This is an interview, and all of the content is direct from Bhumika. It therefore fails the GNG as it is not independent of Bhumika.
2 This is almost good, but it is a bit promotional, and worse, there is not enough depth of coverage. See
WP:100W, which although just an essay it reflects how people will judge this source.
3 On excluding Bhumika's direct quote, there is virtually nothing said about Bhumika.
These are not terrible sources, but I think none contain enough coverage of the subject to be called significant. Quotes from the subject herself cannot count as independent coverage of the subject. If these three are the best, she is not Wikipedia-notable. I suggest that you instead work at
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8779797/. That is a much better site for covering her, and it is currently very thin.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
13:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)reply
These are not terrible sources, but I think none contain enough coverage of the subject to be called significant.SmokeyJoe, Sir there are twenty other sources among which I'm sure there are enough which contain sufficient coverage of the subject to be called significant and for that you will have to review the whole draft.
If these three are the best, she is not Wikipedia-notable. Sir, honestly, I do not know which are the best
WP:THREE. I humbly request you to please review my draft, I'm hundred percent sure that after reviewing it you will surely find out that Bhumika Gurung is notable to have an independent Wikipedia article.
I suggest that you instead work at
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8779797/. That is a much better site for covering her, and it is currently very thin. Sir, please have some empathy for my
WP:BURDENed condition. I have been torchered brutally by this draft's earlier reviewers, who rejected it without even reading the sources. I am done all my best to make this an original wikipedia article and have been working hard on her article since January 2022.
Sir, please, please, please I beg of you please do not repeat what the earlier reviewers did to me. The last reviewer who had reviewed the draft had not even read or verified any of the reliable sources in the article and he had simply rejected the draft with no valid reasons in such a way that I can't even re-submit it for review. He had treated me very cruelly Sir.
Are you being paid to get the article into mainspace? Why care so much for a Wikipedia article and so little for the IMDB biography?
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
01:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
SmokeyJoeAre you being paid to get the article into mainspace? No I'm neither being paid nor a sockpuppet. You can check my records to verify the same. I'm an ardent fan of Bhumika Gurung and I create
WP:BLPs of all the actors whom I am a fan of.
Honestly, can't I ask the same question? Were the reviewers who reviewed this draft very UNFAIRLY being PAID not to allow this article into the mainspace?
Why care so much for a Wikipedia article and so little for the IMDB biography? Because I have been working on this draft since last January and been subjected to extreme tremendous torcher all throughout. Every petty editor will want his/her hardwork to bear fruits and so is me.
I have worked extremely hard on this draft and made it the best suitable form possible. I have gone through extreme pains when the reviewers rejected it simply for very invalid reasons . And what is wrong in having an article on the actress in Wikipedia when she's fully eligible passing both
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG?
Commonedits (
talk)
02:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am probably too
involved to !vote. There was an article on the subject in 2017. The article was nominated for deletion in March 2018, and was closed as Redirect on 17 March 2018. The article was then repeatedly restored by sockpuppets. On 3 July 2019, the redirect was fully protected with an edit summary that
Deletion Review would be required to unprotect. The appellant submitted a version of the draft in March 2022. I declined the draft on 23 March 2022. The appellant resubmitted the draft, and it was declined by
User:Theroadislong. The appellant then resubmitted the draft, and I Rejected the draft on 15 June 2022. I rejected the draft partly because I could not accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it, and so I did not provide a detailed review. (The appellant stripped the AFC history on submitting the DRV. Some of the AFC history was restored, but some of it is still missing.) I am the reviewer whom the appellant is attacking for not providing a detailed review. The appellant then came here to
DRV on 27 June 2022. See
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 27. The appellant was then blocked while the DRV was open, so the DRV was procedurally closed with the note that the appellant could submit a new DRV request when they came off block. This is that new Deletion Review request.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
00:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If only the AfC history were recorded on the draft talk page, editors could be sanctioned for hiding. Unfortunately with AfC history and comments on the draft proper, it’s removal can be easily justified as an improvement to the draft.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If only the AfC history were recorded on the draft talk page, editors could be sanctioned for hiding. Unfortunately with AfC history and comments on the draft proper, it’s removal can be easily justified as an improvement to the draft.
SmokeyJoe I am not hiding anything nor am I trying to attack anyone! As I have already said several times, I have been subjected to extreme tremendous torcher all throughout while working with this draft. It was as if the reviewers were playing a game with my emotions and with my hardwork! And that's why I am venting out all my pains here!
Commonedits (
talk)
02:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I think you care too much about Bhumika, and this makes you unsuitable to be the leading person pushing for an article. Good editors are not so emotional.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
SmokeyJoeI think you care too much about Bhumika No I care too much about the efforts I put into the articles be it
Bhumika Gurung or
Pravisht Mishra or
Anchal Sahu. There's a lot of time and energy put in behind those efforts and like any other editor, I too expect the good results of all those efforts.
And I ask once again what is wrong in having an article on the actress who passed
WP:NACTOR and
WP:GNG?
Good editors are not so emotional. Being emotional is not my choice, it's a part of my character which makes me who I am and differentiates me from the others.
Commonedits (
talk)
05:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
If editing wikipedia is causing you significant emotional distress, then I'm sorry to say that it may be best for you to take a break. I am not able to confirm a GNG pass at this time, and a
WP:REFBOMB significantly impedes any reviewer from doing so in a reasonable amount of time. This is why we ask for
WP:THREE. Effort doesn't guarantee an article — if you need help in understanding what constitutes significant coverage, we can help, but unless you can provide 3 sources that definitely meet our criteria (not buried in a list of 23 on the draft or however many on the internet, but 3, right here, right now) then unfortunately there is very little any of us can do to help you here.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
08:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Reviewer time is limited. You may be waiting for up to 4 months even if the current backlog shrinks slightly, or more if the backlog grows.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
08:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
It has been reviewed and found to not pass the NACTOR of GNG guidelines. I asked for THREE, he provided THREE, I reviewed them as, while not terrible, not one of them meets the GNG standard.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
23:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Procedural Close again. - If no one else is requesting that we unprotect the redirect except for the appellant, and he doesn't know how to present a case without getting blocked, we can close this, which leaves the redirect locked and in place.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. Ig, the consensus happened three years ago in 2019 and at that moment, Bhumika Gurung did not pass WP: NACTOR but now she does which should be considered.---
Creativitylove (
talk)
07:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
We are working on the draft talk page to collect the evidence of meeting NACTOR. This requires multiple articles to include her as main cast, and is not really a question of sourcing. Working through this is not a DRV matter, the old AfD is still to be endorsed, for the decision being correct at the time it was made.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
User:SmokeyJoe - I respectfully disagree with your statement that "Working through this is not a DRV matter". We are here because the protecting admin,
User:ST47, wrote:
Protecting redirect as a result of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumika Gurung,
WP:DELREV is required to re-create this page. That is why we are here. That is one of the reasons, besides the surplus of low-quality sources, why I wouldn't review the draft. I couldn't have accepted the draft even if I wanted to, and I wouldn't even be able to request an administrator to delete the redirect to make way for the article, because the redirect said that
DRV was required. So we are here. We do have to review the draft, or to decline to review it, or to ask to change the tagging of the redirect. Working through this really is a DRV matter, until we change the tagging of the redirect.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SmokeyJoe: I actually think just an overly-intense fan who dusted off an older account after I blocked the newer one. Can't say for sure, but 4 NPA blocks doesn't really match the UPE M.O. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Restore and list at AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumika Gurung was closed as "redirect" in March 2018. The DRV nominator has presented evidence that four years later, the subject has received new acting roles and has been covered by media sources published after March 2018. This is enough for
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion to no longer apply because the policy "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I am supporting a restore and relist at AfD so that the community can discuss the subject's notability again. I am supporting this even though the nominator has been blocked, even though I have not formed an opinion about whether the subject is notable, and even though I am not familiar with the topic area and the reliability of the sources. G4 does not apply, and four years is enough time to revisit whether there should be a standalone article. This revisiting and the analysis of the sources should be done at AfD.
Cunard (
talk)
09:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Unprotect - I agree with
User:Cunard's rationale and with their reservations. However, I don't see what we would be discussing at AFD. So I think it is sufficient to lift the protection and to allow a good-faith neutral editor to submit a draft for review. AFD normally considers an actual article. What does Cunard want to list? The deleted article, the draft, or what?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The DRV nominator is blocked so they would not be able to present their case at AfD for why the subject is notable. So instead of having DRV restore the article and list it at AfD, I am also fine with your suggestion of just unprotecting
Bhumika Gurung and allowing any good faith editor to restore the draft to mainspace.
Cunard (
talk)
09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
UnprotectBhumika Gurung. New roles, with sources, overcome the reasons for redirection in the 2019 AfD. I think the subject can be shown to meet NACTOR, although some cleanup of the draft is needed. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
14:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
