Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shaikh

Fahad Shaikh

[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)

This BLP was created by Fadushake (talk · contribs) - the subject themselves, as shown in the edit summary. I did a quick G'search and found nothing substantial to establish GNG, so I’m nom it for deletion. The subject has had roles in a few TV series, but that doesn’t guarantee their standalone BLP on Wikipedia. Anyone arguing that they meet NACTOR should keep this in mind when voting. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He does seem to meet WP:NACTOR fairly with multiple significant roles (including more than 10 lead roles [I would not call this "a few"]) in notable productions. And that is verifiable through various sources on the page (even if some sources are not great) or via the articles about the productions when they exist (note that the absence of a page for any given production is not necessarily the sign of non-notability (nor of notability, clearly)) Also note that various sources and lead section used Sheikh (not Shaikh) for his name (example: https://theazb.com/fahad-sheikh-to-star-in-pakistans-first-ever-digital-feature-film/ https://www.mangobaaz.com/23-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-actor-fahad-sheikh/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, It seems your vote was based on WP:OR, which I have removed. You need to provide evidence of their lead roles, as I don’t see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Really? :D.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the list mentioned in the Television section, 11 of his dramas are notable enough to have a separate Wiki Page. In many, he is in the lead role. Still not met NACTOR?--Gul Butt (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC) — Gul Butt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We can cleanup page or put COI tag, reason everyone knows. Gul Butt (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gul Butt, Your vote resembles WP:ATA. You should explain how they meet NACTOR. I've removed the WP:OR, which claims the subject has had lead roles. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATA is an extremely long essay and should not be opposed to a !vote without further precision. Most of all, Gul Butt very very very very explicitly explained how and why the guideline is met in their opinion. As for your removal of material from the page during an AfD, I would suggest you refrain from doing so and rather add a tag to the content you deem unsourced. Thank you. Aside: do you honestly doubt that his roles are lead roles??? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, You all are voting to keep this BLP based on WP:OR and I don't need your permission to remove WP:OR from a BLP, even if the BLP is at AFD. You should provide evidence of how the actor meets NACTOR instead of relying on WP:OR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’You all?’ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not satisfied with presented sources (they are churnalism, in my view), and my reasonable before finds nothing which meets RS. Any argument on what Wikipedia says about a subject is ridiculous, since we're not allowed to cite the pedia here. The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. Given this is a BLP and a self-promotional autobiography to boot, I can't keep. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one, at least among the two other !voters, and that includes myself, has made any argument on what Wikipedia says about [the] subject (emphasis mine) (not sure whose "ridiculous" argument based on cit[ing] the pedia you have in mind, but on this page, there's none that I can see; the existence of pages about certain productions is only mentioned as an indication that the said productions are probably considered notable and while I agree that factor alone is not enough, the absence of a page is also, therefore, not enough to prove any given production is not notable. But a WP page is, in certain cases, the easiest starting point to check given roles are main/lead: the verification is made "via" (consider I use capital letters and bold, and in big :D) the articles (and the sources they contain); it is not based on what the article "says"; even so-so sources (cited or simply available online) can be used for verification of that, even intro of interviews (for example: the mention "‘Jalan’ star" in https://dailytimes.com.pk/696033/jalan-star-fahad-sheikh-says-fahad-mustafa-is-his-mentor/ (certainly not a great source and certainly not sufficient to demonstrate notability) allows to verify the role is not minor. Again, these sources are not direct proof of notability but help verify the roles are "significant", which is what the applicable specific guideline requires. Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is refuting my central argument: The WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to keep material to prove the case with multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. We have lots of admittedly bad sources, I'll agree. We have none which meet my standard for IRS directly detailing. None. On a BLP. ALSO an autobiography. This isn't close. Delete. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, You should have realized by now (and there are more examples like this such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc) that simply stating that the subject has roles in a TV series is not enough to keep the BLP. You need to establish how they meet NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this imv unnecessary (I'm being polite) ad hominem remark. I won't even bother commenting on its inaccuracy myself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, Labeling my comments as ad hominem just because you have no counterarguments is, ironically, a form of ad hominem itself. If I had said that you’re losing your credibility with those kinds of keep votes in the AFDs, that would be an ad hominem remark. imv. Let's focus on the actual discussion! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting the closing/relisting admin/user to comment on this extremely inappropriate ad hominem remark. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking User:Mushy Yank to ANI about this issue. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also inviting the user to remove material added to their comment, after my reply; per Wikipedia:REDACTED and to move them below or where they wish. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. References in Brecorder are not independent as Aaj TV is part of the group [1]. 103.82.120.217 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 103.82.120.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, clearly. He played lead roles in Azmaish[2], Jalan (TV series)[3] and perhaps others, and important secondary roles in many other series. Lots of coverage in English-language sources, probably more in non-English sources. Fram (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram, I'm sorry, but I still can't verify from the provided sources that Fahad had lead roles. Just doing a few roles on some TV shows doesn’t necessarily mean he played a lead role. And let’s assume that someone played lead roles in a few TV series. Does this mean they are inherently considered WP:N and don’t need to meet the NBASIC? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  GNG is even less of an issue, consideribg the many nexs sources specifically about him. But the dispute was that people couldn´t vrtify that he played lead roles despite e.g. this stating this explicitly, and it being implicit in many other sources. Have any of the "delete" voters even attempted to do a WP:BEFORE search or is it simply more fun to be aggressive against the keeps? Fram (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NACTOR clearly states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and as admin clarified, WP:NACTOR says significant roles, not major, as one of the two paths to entertainer notability. [4], A supporting role can be significant. A single scene or a single line can be significant depending on context [5], The policy does not say lead [6]. Libraa2019 (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Fram, Yes, there are reliable native language sources discussing him which includes Dawn News, Daily Jang, Dawn News, Express News, Independent News. Libraa2019 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don’t want to come across as a BLUDGEON, so this may be my final comment on this AFD. I’d like to highlight that the section on entertainers clearly states, Such a person may be considered notable if using the term may be considered. That said, even if someone has played a few roles in TV series, I'm not convinced they deserve a BLP unless they have significant roles in multiple notable TV series, which isn't the case here, imv because many of the series in which this actor has appeared don't even easily meet WP:N, despite articles being created about them. Similarly, meeting a subject-specific guideline means the topic is presumed to be notable, not that the individual is necessarily notable. So while there may be some press coverage on the subject, it appears to be paid PR churnalism and not something that can pass GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done some research and found that it was created by SPA Fadushake (talk · contribs) but at that time this BLP pertained to film-maker of same name and existed till 2019, then in July 2020, an unknown IP hijacked this article & replaced information of film-maker with actor of same name. Now if we are seeing hijacking then article should be reverted to film-maker. I am unsure whether this hijacking will reverted or AFD will continue. If we are here about actor then he is meeting notability criteria with three major roles i.e, Jalan (verified by 24 News), Azmaish (verified by The Express Tribune) and Naam Kya Rakha (verified by Daily Times). Also country's major publications discussing him with three mentioned above and some others are Daily Times, Daily Times, Dawn News, Daily Jang, Dawn News, Express News, Independent News, DAWN. Libraa2019 (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]