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 no consensus‎. Editors are divided in their assessment of whether NACTOR is met, and as such there is no consensus as to whether this person is notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raza (actor)

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

Ali Raza (actor) (edit | 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)

Disputed draftification. I do not believe redraftifying would allow this to be accepted because no amount of editing can conjure notability from nowhere. Fails WP:NACTOR. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is 100% about significant coverage. Again, it is under additional criteria (a subsection of WP:BIO which is the actual guideline) and says "may" which is only an indication a person could meet the overall WP:BIO guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. See below and read the guideline. -Mushy Yank. 00:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is barely mentioned in those two sources. In my opinion, both of these roles do not fulfill the merits of WP:NACTOR. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But mentioned, right, with his roles? That are significant (not minor), and in notable productions? Correct? So, well, NACTOR applies.. -Mushy Yank. 00:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
significant roles in multiple productions, in my opinion, a role is only significant if it is thoroughly discussed in reliable sources. Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant", sure, absolutely, but again, that is not what I said; it depends on what is said about it. Significant roles in the production (lead/main/recurring/etc) make a NACTOR pass; just like a director plays a significant role in the making of a film. A noted part in/of a noted film can be considered notable enough and that is why such guidelines exist. If coverage allows to verify it, it can/may be considered enough. By the same token, it may be considered insufficient and I understand that is your take but that does not change the fact that it's a NACTOR pass. Really no further comment from me here. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 01:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline reads "may be considered notable" (as pointed out in other AfD's), not "is considered notable." The person could have 20 significant roles and not be notable unless there is significant coverage to support. Here, the coverage falls short.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even GNG uses ”may”. WP: NACTOR is a solid reason to keep a page. You can judge it’s not enough if you want but still it’s a perfectly acceptable reason to consider a person notable. This is a NACTOR pass and that is that and that is the applicable guideline. -Mushy Yank. 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR is not a pass/fail, it is only an indicator of WP:BASIC which requires significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is simply. not. true. NACTOR is a specific notability guideline for people. You may not like it, you may want to change it or to get rid of it, and you still may !vote to delete or to redirect a page when a subject passes its requirements but it is a notability guideline and the applicable one in the present case. Thank you for your time. -Mushy Yank. 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. It is only part of a guideline that says "may" (meaning "could be" or "possibly"). If you look at the entire guideline (not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria"), you will see that a person must still meet WP:BASIC. It is not what I like or don't. It is literally what the guidelines says. I do not see anything that says a person "is" notable if they have had significant roles. If I missed that part, please point it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but again, I am very sorry but what you are saying is not true. Again, even GNG does not say something like "Subjects Meeting GNG "ARE" notable and this cannot be discussed and their notability cannot be challenged".
The page WP:Notability (people) says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...."(=additional criteria [including NACTOR] ). Not "if they meet any of the following standards AND the basic criteria".
Again, one can perfectly judge that a WP:NACTOR pass (or a GNG pass, or a NDIRECTOR pass, or a BASIC pass) is not sufficient but one can also think it's enough; and that is one reason why AfDs exist. I will rephrase: a simple WP:NACTOR pass CAN be (and often is) considered enough for notability (and that is because it is a (specific) notability guideline); it does not guarantee inclusion, that's all.
You may not like it, you may call that specific guideline tiny and want to change it but that is the way it (currently) is. See Cavarrone's comment on the thread you yourself initiated there, please......I really have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy by assertion. I also never called something tiny. Again, please show me where it says someone "IS" notable for having significant roles. I will not hold my breath here. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy by assertion?? :D Sure, if you say so. "I also never called something tiny." But of course you did. "(not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria")" No further comment.... -Mushy Yank. 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist my words to support your assertion. "Tiny" referred to the size, not the significance. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't twist your words (let alone to support any assertion of mine, mind you). I just quoted one word you wrote. And you denied having used it. That's all. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Final question which still hasn't been answered. Is there anywhere in NACTOR that says an actor "is" notable for having significant roles?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Meeting WP:NACTOR is a valid reason to keep an article, but the discussion so far has focused on GNG and on meta disputes about the wording of NACTOR - evaluating whether this person's roles are sufficient to count toward that guideline is necessary to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - @Vanamonde93:, for clarification, are you saying that someone would meet NACTOR for significant roles despite not having the significant coverage to support? Meaning, as long as we verify those are significant roles then NACTOR is met? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Meeting NACTOR is usually enough to keep a standalone article, so long as there is enough reliably-sourced material to write a BLP-compliant article. All of our notability guidelines - including GNG - are written with some degree of qualification, because they are meant to be interpreted with common sense and allowing for exceptions. You need to look at the entire documentation, and the history of applicability, to determine whether a notability guideline is treated independently from GNG or not. NACTOR, alongside NPOL, WP:PROF, NAUTHOR, and a few others, is typically treated as an alternative to GNG. I am explicitly not stating that this individual is notable, only that their roles require evaluation with respect to NACTOR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with that assessment. I believe some arguments in this and other discussions is that NACTOR is in itself enough despite NACTOR saying "may be notable." It is also a subsection of WP:BIO which still requires people to meet WP:BASIC which is where I think there is confusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you agree with me, but what you're saying is directly in contradiction to what I said: NACTOR can indeed be enough without GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I referred to WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you expect a reply from me on an obscure page, it would be useful to ping me next time...WP:BASIC does not in any way obviate other criteria. NPOL, NAUTHOR, PROF, NACTOR, and a few other criteria have long been held to be sufficient despite GNG. NSPORTS was too, before the community decided it wasn't. "Presumed notable doesn't mean notable" is not the gotcha that you seem to think it is - it means that common sense needs to be applied in every case, not that that particular criterion can be set aside altogether. The summary at the top of WP:BIO also uses the "presumed" language with respect to what is essentially GNG - yet nobody would argue that GNG was insufficient. Anyhow, this is the last I will say about this, because I don't want or need to persuade you - I am only explaining how a closer will usually weigh arguments. A clear NACTOR pass with sufficient sourcing to write a biography will usually be kept. A clear GNG pass will also usually be kept. A failure of both criteria will usually be deleted. I have no opinions on which case is true here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean for it to be a subject of contention. I was discussing NACTOR versus NBASIC and you were discussing NACTOR versus GNG. NACTOR uses the term "may" which means there may be significant coverage. GNG uses the term "presumed" which means there is likely coverage. Some cite NACTOR as meaning if they have significant roles then the coverage doesn't need to exist. And, I am not saying that off of a guess - it has been the argument for a select few in many deletion discussions, including one that just closed as delete.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumably notable" is not notable. We need significant coverage to support that presumption. Can you provide a list of the sources you feel are significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) We don't need significant coverage for someone to meet WP:NACTOR, we just need evidence that they had significant roles in notable shows. (2) I said the TV series were presumably notable. The series are not being debated here, and do each have two reviews, hence my "presumably". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that wrong. Apologies. As far as "just need[ing] evidence," how are we able to get that evidence with there being significant coverage in reliable sources? Are press releases okay? Primary sources? Honest question. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The presumed notability of the TV series does not necessarily indicate that the actor had a significant role. It is entirely possible that their role was minor. On what basis do you consider their roles to be significant, and how do we establish that? Shouldn't we determine this by examining coverage in reliable sources? Do you really think an actor with a significant role would only be casually mentioned in an article about the series spanning ten paragraphs? Wouldn't you expect a bit more detailed coverage for a truly significant role? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are poor and there is not enough significant coverage on the career and reliable sources to verify the roles (if lead or not) played by the actor. I have seen "Noor Jahan" show and the actor didn't have a lead but a supporting role (one of the sons of the lead female character who played title role) in that show and the page wrongly calls it lead role. So without verification and evidence on the roles played and significant coverage, we cannot assume the subject meets WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated the page rapidly again to address raised concerns.-Mushy Yank. 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Iqtidar: The only significant role I can verify as of now is from Iqtidar. In the future, coverage from Tauba, Girhein and Dastak may help establish notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which roles and where is the significant coverage supporting they are significant?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria such as WP:ARCHITECT, WP:ARTIST, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR,WP:JOURNALIST, WP:POET, WP:PRODUCER, WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, WP:ENT, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL. And he subject is notable as per NACTOR. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already discussed in this afd that was just closed for a page you created and in the deletion review discussion for that page which is ongoing. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment of Vanamonde93, RebeccaGreen. Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the sources which show the notability? Saying "per...." is not a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2025 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Raza_(actor)
No tags for this post.