Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahar Hashmi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy delete‎ per G5 by Hey man im josh. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Hashmi (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)

Moved to draft by another editor but draftification was objected to by creator. References are all unreliable or not in-depth about the subject, just verification of roles but mainly non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep repeating this, but having two roles does not meet someone is inherently notable. Needs significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "having 2 roles"!!!!!!! It's having (at least) two LEAD (therefore significant) roles in notable productions. -Mushy Yank. 20:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting it was you who initially redirected Zulm prior to undoing that redirect after this AfD was started.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a self-revert. For more about this kind of redirects and why I self-reverted some of them, including this one, see this .
As for WP:NACTOR, you just need coverage to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), please. -Mushy Yank. 20:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that is your assessment of NACTOR, but based on the link you provided for the AfD, myself and others disagree. That AfD is in no way supports your statement that "you just need coverage to verify the important of the roles in the notable productions." If you want to cite AFDs we have disagreed about we can also include this one and this one where you made the similar argument. Also, NACTOR says "may," not "is." Sorry to keep repeating that as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the results of the AfDs nor about disagreements between given users.. The AfDs you link do not contain an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR whereas the one I linked does. [And in the latter, who are the "others" who disagree on the fact that NACTOR is an independent path to notability that needs coverage to verify the importance of the roles in notable production, please?] I will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 4 March 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.