User talk:Mushy Yank
 | Hello and welcome.
I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. So if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. I will not continue to watch a talk page if the discussion has migrated. By the same token, if I leave a comment on another talk page, please respond to it there. At the same time, feel free to send an alert about a comment you have left elsewhere. Also please note that I find user warning templates generally inappropriate. If I have made a mistake and there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words. Thank you. |
Despite having interview sources, she doesn't feel notable. All of her sources simply mention her short films and her role in Ammani (supporting role). Out of the twenty-so films that she acted in almost all of them are minor roles. Minor meaning a level below supporting sometimes having no dialogues at all (other such actors don't have articles). For supporting roles only having many (like a ton) could potentially make her notable. DareshMohan (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello DareshMohan, she received 2 awards in 2021but they could be considered minor (and Sennai has no page). The first article in The Hindu , although presenting an interview contains a few elements that might count; but the rest is imv not enough indeed. What I suggest is to redirect to Ammani because that's what she was noted for (that has a page). Draft might be an option. It's a pity because it's clean but WPNACTOR/ DIRECTOR are not met and GNG, neither, apparently. User:Greenbangalore, who created a page, might know. If another of her roles is significant enough and in a "blue" film, the page could be kept as such (but that might challenged). For example, if Sennai can be considered notable (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/jaikumar-sedhuramans-sennai-wins-big-at-nepal-film-fest/articleshow/88371149.cms) or sources back the claim it"s notable, because her role has received awards (although minor) that prove it"s significant. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I voted as speedy keep. I feel that we both made mistakes (mine was the edit conflict where I mentioned those 2 roles here at the same time you responded). I could have simply again asked before nominating but I only knew more about the two roles after writing so much in the deletion discussion. I was unsure about redirecting because I thought articles (or only film articles?) can be redirected if they are not 90 days or older. To not make the article deletion entirely pointless, can you work on improving the article? Would you support modifying her filmography to show lead roles and minor roles in different tables or rather independent films and noon-Independent films separately. I can add a Reference column and try to cite the roles. DareshMohan (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| If at all I'm a good, good faith editor, it is thanks to you. Plus, you rekindled my interest to do more international cinema. :) DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much for this very touching message; very honoured by what you say. And always glad to receive a barnstar! :D. Yours, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Clarification[edit]
Just wanting to learn policy.
In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.
Is speedy keep a straightforward case? It probably is just confirming.
I should have just Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). Closed the deletion myself. I didnt know about that. DareshMohan (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello DareshMohan, thank you for your concern. I was involved in the editing and AfD, true, but I thought the close was pretty uncontroversial and as you had indicated to close as SK, I decided to take it on me and ignore the rule. If you want to undo it and close it yourself, feel free! (I think it would be a bit bureaucratic but no worries). I just didn't want other users to waste time on this and the page to be marked with an undue notice any longer. But you're right I should have added in my closing statement something like: "I am involved but decided to ignore the letter of the rule". Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! It wasn't worth other users time and I should be careful when nominating articles. Plus, I could have closed it myself.
- P. S. How do I learn more about Wikipedia policies, do I just sit down and read them? DareshMohan (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good question. You can just read them, yes. Talk pages of Guidelines and their history are also interesting to understand why they are what they are and how they were discussed and implemented. For example, I remember a guideline or was it a policy? that went "VERIFIABILITY NOT TRUTH". I always found it was misleading and always disliked it, and disagreed with the way it was phrased and applied. Eventually, it was "rephrased" and downgraded to an essay and footnote. This kind of things gives you food for thought. It's a bit like the way NEWSORGINDIA or WP:NACTOR are interpreted sometimes. One day, it will probably be clarified. Maybe not in a way that I agree with (for instance, another example would be the notability of pornographic artists on Wikipedia: it is subject to a rather recent decision that basically makes them non-notable for being what they are; I don't mind and maybe it's all for the good of readers and contributors, but I think it's unfair). But If you're bold, you'll probably break rules at some point and then someone will let you know you did. Also, I am pretty sure you know the core policies; and when common sense and decency guide your action, it's very likely that what you do is positive. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)