Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puneet Superstar

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 no consensus‎. Keep's refutation of the BLP1E argument is solid, but there is ultimately a lack of consensus on whether coverage meets GNG, and the extent to which coverage of Puneet Superstar's Big Boss appearance counts towards establishing his notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Superstar[edit]

[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)

PROD was previously contested: influencer known for participating on Bigg Boss, fails WP:NACTOR. Arguements could be made for passing WP:GNG, but these sources are either possibly unreliable (refs one and four both have no documented editorial practices) or cover Kumar only as run of the mill television coverage. The article seems to fall foul of WP:BLP1E, as all of the sources found (in article and during WP:BEFORE) only cover Kumar in the context of Bigg Boss. His impact on this event was definitely not large, as he was removed from the show on the first day. If decided upon, an appropriate redirect / merge target would be Bigg_Boss_OTT_(Hindi_season_2). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Statesman article is independent, reliable SIGCOV, providing a description of his work, relationship with fans, etc. Given that the India Today article is independent and reliable, and goes in depth on his contributions to Bigg Boss (far more than a passing mention), we should have enough for GNG. (For RS I'm referring to WP:ICTFSOURCES) —siro χ o 09:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo, what do you think about this falling foul of Wikipedia:BLP1E? I addressed the existence of some sources in my nomination, but this is still routine coverage of a popular show that doesn't show that Kumar is notable beyond a single event. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is not a "low profile individual" so it wouldn't apply. (Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.) But I could be misunderstanding the purpose of BLP1E. —siro χ o 10:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E could also be relevant here. The one event would be this TV show appearance. I am unsure so won't bolded vote, but figured I'd mention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I'm feeling like a lawyer now: It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. I could read that to say, he's famous for Bigg Boss, but is notable for other meme/stream/fan stuff? I don't really have a horse in this !vote, just always trying to get to the bottom of things. —siro χ o 10:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same. My goal for the next few weeks is to participate in a ton of AFDs, pay attention to the outcomes, then tweak my !voting accordingly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do stick around, we've lost participants in the AfD discussions over the last little while. This is a good way to learn about wikipedia policies, notability and get a "behind the scenes" look at how it works. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty new to AfD (especially noms) so this is also a learning experience for me! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily, I read that the opposite way! I interpret "conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person," as meaning that Kumar may be "famous" for his social media stunts (that was in fact the reason the PROD was contested), but he is only "notable" for his participation in this one event. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 11:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Plenty of coverage in the Times of India, one thing in Mashable (which doesn't look like a sponsored piece) [1]. Statesman as above is another good source. I think we're just past notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not much reliable source tk support WP:BIO.All the article published just because of BIGG BOSS OTT is hyped now. Can't be notable for a TV series. ‪Nomadwikiholic‬ (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to an established guideline that suggests one cannot be notable for a TV series? Additionally, note that the reliable independent sources above may have been published due to the event but are able to establish notability outside of the event. e.g.

"Puneet Kumar, also known as Lord Puneet or Puneet Superstar, gained fame after a video of him passionately shouting while riding as a passenger on a motorcycle went viral...Puneet Superstar is a social media influencer who has struck a chord with fans through his passionate expressions about the challenges of daily life, earning him the moniker of “hod” by many. He is renowned for donating 90% of his earnings to support underprivileged children and individuals, which has naturally endeared him to the public.[2] —siro χ o 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough reliable in-depth source which is supporting WP:GNG and WP:BIO. All those article is about BIGG BOSS OTT. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.185.129.20 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:BLP1E. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 08:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To any future participants in this discussion. Please read through WP:LPI before referencing WP:BLP1E. —siro χ o 09:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are differing views about this article in relation to WP:BLP1E (a question that seems to be coming up a lot lately at AFD discussions). Some Deletes frankly seem more like IDON'TLIKEITs than policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per siroxo. GNG is met, and BLP1E does not apply because the LPI prong is not met. That said, the sourcing still feels pretty thin for a BLP and a merge as suggested above might not be a bad idea. -- Visviva (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2023 (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.