Doczilla
|
Doczilla stays busy meeting real life deadlines and may not see inquiries soon.
The big lizard therefore will not always respond swiftly even though messages are appreciated. |
Deletion review for Akiko Kitamura edit
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Akiko Kitamura. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Confusing series of edits edit
Why are you removing links and asking for a citation for a single person in an album's credits, including in instances where the album credits has a citation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The links are getting removed because of AfD. The citation request is an artifact of the tech. Partway through, I realized what it was doing and stopped the cn requests. Now I have to remove those while keeping the links removed. I think I thought of an easy way to do that quickly but didn't want to risk anything up by testing it in the middle of the night. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining and cleaning them up. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The links are getting removed because of AfD. The citation request is an artifact of the tech. Partway through, I realized what it was doing and stopped the cn requests. Now I have to remove those while keeping the links removed. I think I thought of an easy way to do that quickly but didn't want to risk anything up by testing it in the middle of the night. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qudsia Ali edit
Hello Doc - No offense, but I'm considering taking this to WP:DRV and I wanted to let you know why and see if you'd reconsider your decision. Although there were many keep votes, the subject hasn't had major roles in any TV drama or film listed on their BLP. I couldn't find any reliable sources verifying these claims, meaning they fail NACTOR. The only major role is in the short film called XXL, which isn't noteworthy, making it irrelevant whether the role was major or minor. Also, there isn't enough significant and in-depth coverage to meet GNG. What’s your take on this? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus was that almost everyone else judged the actor as more notable and at least some of the sources as more reliable and more significant than you did. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 15:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doc - Honestly I've noticed that sometimes AfDs particularly those related to third world, appear more like a lottery than a genuine consensus. For the record, I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources presented. Rather, it seems that the votes made lack policy based arguments and lean more towards what could be considered WP:ATA. This actor only had a major role, as required by NACTOR, in only one short film called XXL (Pakistani film) but even this role in this non-notable film is not enough to meet NACTOR due to the lack of noteworthiness of the film themselves. Also the assessment didn't seem to consider the GNG, which the actor also fails to meet. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting thoughts. I should point out, though, that WP:NACTOR says significant roles, not major, as one of the two paths to entertainer notability. There is a difference. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I assume significant = lead roles. Agree? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- A supporting role can be significant. A single scene or a single line can be significant depending on context. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are supporting roles really seen as significant under the NACTOR? I recall instances where BLPs were taken down because the closing admins didn't think supporting roles mattered much. It's a bit confusing because what one person considers significant might not hold the same weight for someone else. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- As just one example: The recently departed Susan Backlinie never played lead, not even close. Neither did many, many actors whose contributions were significant in other ways. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are supporting roles really seen as significant under the NACTOR? I recall instances where BLPs were taken down because the closing admins didn't think supporting roles mattered much. It's a bit confusing because what one person considers significant might not hold the same weight for someone else. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Saqib:, significant does not mean lead. Significant would come from how it is discussed in the reliable sources in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- A supporting role can be significant. A single scene or a single line can be significant depending on context. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I assume significant = lead roles. Agree? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting thoughts. I should point out, though, that WP:NACTOR says significant roles, not major, as one of the two paths to entertainer notability. There is a difference. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doc - Honestly I've noticed that sometimes AfDs particularly those related to third world, appear more like a lottery than a genuine consensus. For the record, I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources presented. Rather, it seems that the votes made lack policy based arguments and lean more towards what could be considered WP:ATA. This actor only had a major role, as required by NACTOR, in only one short film called XXL (Pakistani film) but even this role in this non-notable film is not enough to meet NACTOR due to the lack of noteworthiness of the film themselves. Also the assessment didn't seem to consider the GNG, which the actor also fails to meet. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)