Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeeshan Khan (actor)

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 delete. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Khan (actor)

[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)

Not a notable actor having only portrayed small roles. Most of the sources cited do not even mention the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd say move to draft, but I already moved it to Draft:Zeeshan Khan (actor). Article creator Aleyamma38 recreated it in live space after it was moved to draft. I deleted that live space version, assuming that this new user did that by mistake. However with this second recreation in live space, along with their attempt to have the draft deleted, it looks like they're on a warpath to force this article into live space despite what other experienced editors suggest. So, this is starting to feel like agenda-driven editing. Searching Google for "Zeeshan Khan" "Kuch Toh Hai Tere Mere Darmiyaan", I get zero hits. "Zeeshan Khan" "Parvarrish" gets zero substantive hits. "Zeeshan Khan" "Kumkum Bhagya" provides a number of fluffy PR-themed hits, none of which constitute the significant coverage aspect of our WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: it looks like they're on a warpath to force this article into live space despite what other experienced editors suggest. So, this is starting to feel like agenda-driven editing

Not at all Sir, but rather you seem to be on an agenda-driven editing to delete this article by wrongly claiming that wikipedia is a neutral platform!

However, I respect your suggestions as you are an experienced editor and I will give my opinions here, though I first thought that the discussion is happening in the talk page.

I have no issues if the final decision is that the article should be deleted as being a new editor, I do not want to go against the rules and norms put by the administrators here.

I will put my reasons for not deleting this page but I leave the choice to the administrators.

Thank you--Aleyamma38 (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this Wikipedia article

I agree that this actor has not done many shows and even in the shows which he got to do, he only had Recurring/Supporting roles.

But, is it the no of shows or the type of roles of an Actor which determine the creation of their articles in Wikipedia?

Then how will be the motto of Wikipedia the free encyclopedia which has a NEUTRALITY IN IT'S ARTICLES be fulfilled?

Here, I'm not talking as a FAN but just a COMMON WIKIPEDIAN EDITOR, who had carefully studied each and every wikipedia guidelines for creating a biography of an individual before creating both Zeeshan Khan and Aparna Mishra; And I know not every 'struggling-actor can have a wikipedia article but, if I am not wrong...

An Actor must have atleast done 3 shows.

He/She should have been working for atleast 5 years or more.

There should be proper referencing of him/her as An Actor.

The references should be reliable resources such Pinkvilla, Times of India, Tribune, Indian Express, Bollywoodlife etc; Tellychakkar, IVMBuzz, Bookmyshow, Filmibeat and certain other websites are considered unreliable resources.

And I guess the article Zeeshan Khan follows all of the guidelines mentioned above!

I would also like to mention that the articles Zeeshan Khan (actor born in 1989), Abrar Qazi have very poor referencing (including to the fact that the number of references are only around 3-4). Next, the article of Mugdha Chaphekar has used unreliable resources and also abused the Wikipedia guidelines by claiming the Image file to be an own work, plus the Filmography section is very badly edited.

Yes, Zeeshan Khan has never been in lead roles like Abrar Qazi and Mugdha Chaphekar, but is it neutral to have wikipedia articles of Zeeshan Khan (actor born in 1989), Abrar Qazi, Mugdha Chaphekar and many other articles which I have come across in Wikipedia with very bad editing and referencing, while delete an article of Zeeshan Khan all because he has done only supporting and recurring roles.

Ethically, in a normal world we try to Respect, every Profession for whatever each individual does, because there is a mutual relation of every profession with each other.

In the same way, in the field of Acting, every actor should be RESPECTED, no matter whatever role he/she does because a show or film doesn't run only with the lead actors.

So, when wikipedia has this motto of being a NEUTRAL PLATFORM, it would be UNFAIR to delete this article all because the actor has never got lead roles.

@Cyphoidbomb: Searching Google for "Zeeshan Khan" "Kuch Toh Hai Tere Mere Darmiyaan", I get zero hits. "Zeeshan Khan" "Parvarrish" gets zero substantive hits. "Zeeshan Khan" "Kumkum Bhagya" provides a number of fluffy PR-themed hits, none of which constitute the significant coverage aspect of our WP:GNG

And being only given a supporting, recurring role in every show adds to the fact, why there are very few articles mentioning the actor.

However, I request that, atleast Wikipedia can follow the Rule of Neutrality and not JUDGE LIKE OTHER MEDIA!

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree delete the page as he is not a notable celebrity compared to Hina Khan Arjun Bijlani Sanaya Irani and Pearl V Puri. And Aleyamma38 Pinkvilla is not a reliable source stop lying and Abrar and Mughda are more popular than Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318 and 2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318: Pinkvilla is not a reliable source stop lying and Abrar and Mughda are more popular than Khan

I agree with your second statement that the actor is not a celebrity and I already mentioned it in my reasons earlier. But your second statement Pinkvilla is not a reliable source, makes you a liar. If you have doubts, please ask the administrators here, as the articles of Pinkvilla are one among the most used in almost all Hindi Television Series as a reliable resource.

By the way, you need not put up requests on my talk page not to delete Mugdha Chaphekar, if you really want to know which are the REAL UNREALIABLE REFERENCES in Wikipedia then the editors of Mugdha Chaphekar article have used them in their references. Please do check it up once. Thank you

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Pinkvilla is not considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community, as it is a gossip site. Neither is Bollywoodlife, neither is Tellychakkar, neither is Bookmyshow, neither is Filmibeat, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for that confirmation sir, because if you don't mind and also as I guess your watchlist comes under the articles related to article Kumkum Bhagya, you should check the article of Mugdha Chaphekar at least for once Sir, because that article has 3 references out of ten, one from PINKVILLA, INDIAFORUMS and IVMBUZZ, now aren't all these unreliable? Plus, the filmography section has almost no references and badly edited with no mention of the Year of the Show. Please do check once, even if it doesn't come in your watchlist Sir. Thank you--Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleyamma38: First, do you think you can tone down the obnoxious boldface? Second, I said very clearly on my talk page "if you find content that is problematic for one reason or another, you are free to fix those issues." I'm a volunteer just like anybody and you don't get to dictate my workload or where I focus my attention. Note also that this is a discussion about the suitability of the Zeeshan Khan (actor) article, not about other articles at Wikipedia. Any commentary about these other articles is off-topic and non-constructive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: First, do you think you can tone down the obnoxious boldface? Not at all Sir, but I guess your are thinking like that!

Second, I said very clearly on my talk page "if you find content that is problematic for one reason or another, you are free to fix those issues. No thanks Sir, If I volunteer to fix all the issues then it will take my whole life! I'm a volunteer just like anybody and you don't get to dictate my workload or where I focus my attention. Sorry Sir I did not know that the major work of the wikipedia administrators is to block the new users and delete their articles, rather than fixing the existing issues. Will never ask any Wikipedia admin to fix anything! again. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Doesn't fulfill NACTOR as of now. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- After having several discussions, I take back my request, please delete this article Zeeshan Khan --Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, several minor and supporting roles, but nothing significant. Sources have passing mentions, not the in-depth coverage that could support meeting WP:GNG. Article creator needs to understand that Wikipedia isn't a collection of every trivial detail, and nothing hostile is intended or meant by a deletion discussion, just that there are concerns that the subject isn't notable right now. Ravensfire (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above - we all agree that this fails NACTOR and GNG Spiderone 10:32, 1 December 2020 (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.