Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saberi Alam

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 keep. Tone 17:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Saberi Alam

Saberi Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:IMDB. -- HindWiki^Connect 04:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC) — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 18:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing indicates WP:NACTOR criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep- more citations have been added and a quick google search will show more sources available to expand article and show that subject passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

These references do not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. They demonstrate that the subject is an actor, but not that the subject is notable. Anyone with minimal exposure to the acting profession is likely to have at least this much coverage. Plus I note that the same article is listed several times but appearing differently, which is inappropriate.--Rpclod (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The source, The Daily Star which is the largest circulated English language newspaper in Bangladesh, describes her as an accomplished actress and a charming TV show host. Does not seem like minimal exposure. The multiple citation to the same source was result of the article creator using a odd article name. English is not the actors native language and as a result more sources are available in Bengali languages. Try searching using সাবেরি আলম. An example1 of the sources available in Bengali which demonstrate notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It comes down to the question of significant coverage. The first two sources are the deepest. The remaining sources are not deep individually, but each contributes an important bit of encyclopedic information - a television program or film she was in, an award won. Reasonable people could argue it either way. Now she's often playing the mother in remakes of programs in which 25-35 years ago she played the love interest. Because the nomination appears to have been made in bad faith, and because the peak of her career was in pre-internet, non-English, third-world TV, for which sources are difficult to access, I'm inclined to cut the subject more slack than I might otherwise. Rpclod is correct that it isn't obvious whether her significant roles have been in notable television shows, but that probably says more about Wikipedia's abysmal coverage of Bangladeshi TV rather than about how much has been written about TV there. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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.