Beenish Chohan

AfDs for this article:

[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)

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beenish Chohan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Beenish is a well known actress. She started working from PTV and she has done notable roles in dramas on PTV. She got awards too and now she is in drama Bayhadh on Geo TV.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her roles and career. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A national news channel cited in the article in Pakistan calls Chohan a Renowned actress of Pakistan's showbiz industry. This, combined with other citations in the article, move me to keeping the article. By way of aside, the text of the OP is nearly identical to that of multiple other AfDs Saqib has nominated (examples: [1] [2] [3]. While this behavior seems to be out of good faith concern for the benefit of the project, I'm starting to worry that some of these AfDs are veering into low-effort WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeauSuzanne has created hundreds of BLPs on Pakistani actors. However, I 've only nominated fewer than ten for deletion and these nominations were made based on my firm belief that they do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR and even fail to satisfy basic WP:GNG requirements. The websites of Pakistani national news channels clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA therefore our reliance on such websites - which regularly publishj sensational and tabloid content for increased traffic - poses credibility concerns. It render them inadequate for establishing the WP:N of subjects. And I reckon many Pakistani editors would concur with this assessment. It's worth noting that while figures like Ducky Bhai (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) receive extensive coverage in such questionable news websites, but still they do not necessarily warrant a BLP. And why is identical text an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 06:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORGINDIA specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications—Brand Connect in Forbes India, Impact features in India Today, etc., not to all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia.
In a general sense, I grant that using similar text for describing similar problems isn't necessarily on its own an issue. However, some of these articles have seemed more notable than others that were nominated. As I said in my comment, I started to worry that there was some inadvertent automaticness premised on dislike of the articles, rather than per article assessment, slipping in. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As CNMall41 (talk · contribs) noted here, WP:NEWSORGINDIA could be extended to cover the entire media within Indian subcontinent as Pakistan also has issues of paid media. And as CNMall41 said creating a complete listing of ALL publications that engage in such practices would be exhaustive. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:NACTOR.182.182.35.42 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Care to elaborate? I hope the closing admin won't entertain such WP:VAGUEWAVE. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]