Hari Dhillon

Hari Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Delete as non-notable actor. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While this article does need a lot of work, I think the actor is notable. He is listed as a main character for Holby City and his character, Michael Spence (Holby City) does have a very extensive article already. I believe more sources, and more information is required however to keep this article. Todtanis (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree - the actor is high profile character in a high profile show - it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.64.209 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the comments of an anonymous IP who began editing Wikipedia on 12/27/2009 should carry any weight here. Kind of suspicious in my opinion that this individual, still unregistered and after only 10 days, has begun voting on articles for deletion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote, comments in a deletion discussion carry weight to the extent that they make valid arguments. And it's perfectly reasonable that an IP editor will read the article, see the AFD notice with a link to this page, and want to contribute to the discussion. WP:AGF etc... Holly25 (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bring this up, but User:Rms125... admittedly brings a certain expertise to the table. And I agree with him. Especially when it concerns 81.xx IPs [1] Annette46 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I had a look for sources and I think there could be enough to establish notability. Sockpuppetry on the AfD is a concern. As the article stands I think delete, but with some good sources and rewriting this article could be good enough. DRosin (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 06:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has a major role in a primetime BBC drama (which has won multiple "best repeating drama" BAFTAs and tops the ratings[2]), and IMDb credits him in named roles in notable TV shows such as The Loop (5 episodes), Without A Trace, Medium, Charmed, Trial and Retribution (IMDb link [3]). At the moment there don't seem to be enough sources to make the article much more than a stub, but his one major role and numerous named roles in notable shows seem to establish his notability well above that usually accepted for TV actors. Holly25 (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient RS to establish Hari Dhillon's own notability. Secondly we have obviously experienced editors (User:Todtanis, User:Holly25) whose accounts are less than a month old, "voting" on this Afd and trying to influence the deletion process. Annette46 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment gave reasons for his notability according to WP:ENTERTAINER (significant roles in multiple ... television shows) and wasn't intended to be a vote (irrelevant in AfD discussions anyway). Secondly, since you're trying to "influence the deletion process" by accusing me of sockpuppetry, could you please open a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations so that the accusation can be disproven before the close of this AfD, and the accusation can be withdrawn. Thanks. Holly25 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am only following up on the Sockpuppetry concerns previously expressed by 2 much longer term editors. I'll wait for the outcome here before considering following up with a SPI, as filing an SPI-request now WOULD constitute interference in this Afd process. (BTW User:Todtanis has had his SPI deleted on technical grounds (neat)). The basic principle of WP:ENTERTAINMER is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". He fails this for he was not "the subject" of the sources being cited. BTW, you haven't denied being an experienced editor. Annette46 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Editors may see the summary for the deleted investigation HERE, and see that waht is referred to as "technical grounds (neat)" is the fact that, according to the very experienced admin who deleted it, the investigation was initiated by a banned user in violation of that ban. Not nice to violate a ban. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's the general notability guideline. From WP:N: A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines, in this case WP:ENTERTAINER, which is what I have tried to show with my comment. He has significant roles in multiple notable TV shows (as referenced by the non-user-submitted portion of IMDb), which is exactly what that guideline says.

As to "only following up on Sockpuppetry concerns previously expressed": no such concerns have been raised against me. You've made a fresh accusation based apparently on the fact that I defended an IP against the claim that their comments should "carry no weight" (and only after the discussion was relisted - you'd think a half-competent sockpuppeteer would jump in before the discussion was meant to be closed!). That is interference in this discussion but it can be cleared up in a matter of hours - file a report for my account, accusing me of sockpuppetry with that IP account. I'll readily give permission for my IP address to be checked and won't drag out the process; having put the 81.--.--.-- address through an IP locator site I can state that they're on a completely different ISP and geographically hundreds of miles away from me. This can be cleared up so quickly it will have no impact on the discussion here.

As to my experience: I've made many edits as an anonymous IP over a period of years and only had need to register an account in order to create the articles Franz Hessel and Richard Klein (artist). Judging from User:Todtanis' edit history, he tried to create a page through an Articles for Creation request on December 22 (despite having an account and not being required to go down that article-creation route) - after my edit history already shows the ability to create an article of my own accord. In addition, I wouldn't call him an "obviously experienced user" from that edit history: his only edits concern a single article which ended up at AFD (and which to my eyes looks promotional and non-notable, and not something I'd bother creating), after which he seems to have discovered other deletion discussions on the same day his article was listed here (on the very same day, I successfully challenged a badly-tagged CSD on an article to which I had no connection, correctly quoting policy - if I've faked his "lack of experience", it's an awful lot of effort over a month-long period just to get one extra "vote", given that this is the only page on which I've met the two "accused" accounts!). Holly25 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hari Dhillon's article claims he has exactly 1 significant role in a significant series. The IMDB link does not establish the significance of his body of work. WP:BIO is the basic requirement for BLP which he has not fulfilled. For "Entertainers" there are additional criteria which must be fulfilled. It is trite to say that these additional criteria must be verifiable from reliable sources satisfying the basic criteria namely articles he is the subject of (as opposed to passing mentions in credit lists). Annette46 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what "additional criteria" means. From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria which you've linked, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". It doesn't say, "a person has to meet the general criteria, and also these criteria if they fall into one of these categories." Examples: music albums are considered notable if they've verifiably made a major national chart, even if they have no secondary coverage. An academic in an important position and many cited papers is considered notable, even if there is no secondary coverage on the academic himself/herself. Similarly anyone who can be verified to have won a major award. And note that verifiability means any reliable source, not merely "articles of which they are the subject", which is the standard for general notability. Such articles are a general-case fallback when none of these more-specific criteria apply, because subjects in the more specific categories are capable of being notable without generating substantial secondary coverage.

In this case, IMDb is a reliable source for verification of his acting credits. That Holby City is notable can be verified [4]; his recurring role in it can be verified by the fact that IMDb credits him for 109 episodes, he's on the BBC's page for current characters [5] and has his own character[6] and actor[7] pages. His named role in 5 episodes of The Loop would not class as a major or recurring role but would be significant as opposed to extras or one-line actors, who either get generic credits like "Man in airport" or "Angry woman 2" or go uncredited (and don't come back for another 4 episodes). Similarly, the other credits are for named characters in major shows. Taken together, his major and long-running (109 episodes) role in a drama which verifiably gets top audience share ([8], [9]), plus named roles of admittedly unclear significance in a number of other verifiably major shows seems to me to put him well over the minimum bar for notable actors. Holly25 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG/WP:BIO establish the basic presumption for when the subject is notable. Hari Dhillon does not pass this. The presumption is then that he is not-notable. The additional criteria for Entertainers then kicks in. The salient point here being "meeting one or more (ie. additional criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Such a case where the subject fails the basic criteria but meets additional criteria is usually resolved by "MERGE" (see "WP:BIOSpecial cases") especially where there are difficulties in finding reliable sources. So my question remains Why is Hari Dhillon notable?Annette46 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given explanations as to why I think he's notable by the standards applied to actors, and IMDb and the BBC pages are perfectly reliable sources for verifying his acting credits, which would form the contents of an expanded article, so there aren't verifiability concerns. Even if the article were to be merged, his name would then be a redirect to the character article, which is an argument against deletion. That said, I think a merge would be unsuitable: in my opinion, based on the verifiable facts already presented, the actor is notable enough for a separate article, and the verifiable information about his appearances in other major shows would not be suitable content for a character article.

As for general notability: those criteria are sufficient to establish notability; not meeting those general criteria does not imply non-notability. I refer you to my earlier examples of articles that fall into this situation. Holly25 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfying WP:GNG Basic criteria only creates a presumption of notability. There is also the issue of "enduring" notability which transcends this.Annette46 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Annette46.... you've made a slight error on two points. 1) Satisfying the WP:GNG indeed establishes notability per WP:N... it is the "attributes to consider" in the sub-criteria of WP:BIO that allow a presumption of notability in encouraging editors to find the sources THAT MEET the GNG... and 2) please refresh yourself on WP:NTEMP where it is instructed that "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage". If notability is shown now, it need not have continued coverage in the future. It's NOT temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per actor exceeding WP:ENT [10], and also having sourcable notability as a stage actor [11]. Project will benefit from the stub being expanded and sourced. Will get on it myself, because others haven't. Surmountable issues are never cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain pending article modifications by MICHAEL Q. JBsupreme (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep At least one editor is motivated to surmount the issues presented by this article. I removed the stub tag and changed the talk page templates to class=start, since there are seven inline citations right now, and probably more to come. I agree that some obscure actors should have their articles deleted, but this is not the case with this actor. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:ENT. Just look at that filmography and all the blue links. Note also that the Google News search at the top of the AFD, shows he has been featured in the news, and done interviews. An actor that wasn't notable, wouldn't be interviewed by mainstream press. Dream Focus 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many of the sources added by User:Holly25 refer to "Harry Dhillon". Do we have any evidence that this is the same person ? Annette46 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Harry Dillon" is an anglicized name he used earlier in his career, as verified by the credits at his IMDb page and in the "Alternate Names" field there. I'm not aware of any use of "Harry Dhillon" in the sources I provided, but if you point out a specific source I can clear it up. Holly25 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my mistake on the "Harry Dhillon". However, none of his Theatre credits (ie. the plays) are notable enough to be in WP (??). In his "Filmography" (a funny term for only TV appearances) the majority you have cited are 1 episode roles (which do not contribute to his notabilty), so we are back again to the 109 appearances in Holby City and 5 (of unknown significance) in The Loop (TV_series) which was a short lived sitcom terminated prematurely (the 2nd season not being fully broadcast). My research into The Loop and HD's role there as "Sikandar" shows it to be a minor (ie. insignificant) one [12]. Hari Dhillon has only 1 significant role in any notable entertainment project. By "significant" I mean "fairly large". He should therefore by the WP:NN norms I cited previously be deleted or merged or redirected into Michael_Spence_(Holby_City). Annette46 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, the plays do appear notable: they've all had multiple reviews in major newspapers (I've only linked ones that discuss Dhillon by name), "Drifting Elegant" was additionally developed into a feature film[13] with reviews [14] [15], and "A Perfect Wedding" (by major playwright Charles L. Mee) was the inaugural performance of the Kirk Douglas Theatre [16] [17] [18].

"Filmography" is the term used by IMDb for both movie and TV appearances. Cradle 2 the Grave and Entrapment (film) are actually films. Named roles in major TV shows most certainly do contribute to notability (a frankly bizarre statement). Holby City has won multiple BAFTAs (from that article: "cited as the British equivalent to the Oscars"), tops the ratings, and if you look at one of the sources I provided for his role in that (no. 3), Dhillon's been nominated for a National Television Award for "Best Drama Performance". "The Loop" was on the Fox network and got average ratings of 3.86m (S1) and 2.36m (S2), the second season was fully broadcast ("cancelled" means that they didn't commission a 3rd series) at a different timeslot (the article blames a "crowded spring schedule"). Your "research" into his role in The Loop consists of... a link to Wikiquote? I hope that's a joke. You might want to look into what kind of source Wikiquote is, and who hosts the project. Holly25 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these plays already in WP? Or are they notable only now because HD is in them ? Or are they sufficiently notable to be on-Broadway instead of playing out in the sticks? In the film "Entrapment (1999)" he was "3rd security guard", In "Cradle 2 the Grave" he was a " Pakistani buyer" <--both very significant roles ??? The second season of the Loop was NOT fully broadcast - they trimmed it from 13 episodes to 10 episodes (or something similar) and then canceled it before the 2nd season was even broadcast (and yes my source for this is WP). The only reason I even referred to Wikiquote was because I could find nothing else significant enough on "Sikandar" (in the limited time I can give to this) - perhaps you can.Annette46 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not on wikipedia. I provided sources to show that the plays are notable, hence articles could exist. I don't intend writing three articles before the close of this AFD; hence I've provided reasons and sources for their notability. My comment about the films was in reply to your statement that the list was "only TV", those roles are unnamed and haven't been brought up in this discussion as proof of notability. The full second season of "The Loop" was broadcast, because only 10 episodes were produced; the decision on the number of episodes was made, like you say, before broadcast of the season which typically means that the final episodes have not yet went into full production. As for Sikander, I've never claimed to know anything about the significance of his character, only stated that 5 episodes in a notable show makes a good claim for notability. Holly25 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His appearances on "The Loop" is then not sufficiently notable for WP:ENTERTAINER which requires significant roles in multiple notable .. productions. At WP I believe they require "verifiability" (ie. "certainty") rather than "possibility" :-). BTW, have you ever considered that Dhillon is a Sikh surname and Hari is not. For all one knows (as we are descending into possibilities) we may uncover that his given name is actually "Harjit" or "Harpreet" or "Harjinder" and so on (all good Sikh first names). Annette46 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the plays being "out in the sticks"; the Royal Court Theatre definitely doesn't fit that description, and while LA and San Francisco are not Broadway, they are still major theatre cities and the plays have secondary coverage, a spin-off film ("Drifting Elegant") and a notable playwright/inaugural performance of notable theatre ("A Perfect Wedding") as their evidence of notability. As to whether this guy has the right name according to Indian customs... well, you've got me there :) No idea. Holly25 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-indent for better readability. Comment. As I understand it (please correct me), Hari Dhillon still fails to meet WP:BIO's basic criteria as also the additional criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER. Annette46 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  To User:Annette46: Not having an article on Wikipedia (yet) does not mean a play or film or individual is non-notable, as Wikipedia is admittedly far from being an all-encompassing encyclopedia. Inclusion of an actor's lessor projects is required per WP:BLP to properly set context and balance to an article. Further, while WP:V requires sourcing of facts that another editor (apparently) finds contentious, the WP:GNG allows that Dhillon "need not be the main topic of the source material."

  And in considering your voiced comment above that you will await the outcome of this discussion before considering filing an SPI investigation, and in your speaking toward another's experience, it is a bit unusual for any editor with less than 500 edits to take such an interest in asserting suspected sockpuppets or to even involve themselves so deeply in an AFD discussion. Not rare, just a bit unusual. So please, please do not take offense... but have you edited Wikipedia in the past under a different username?

  And PS, anytime a sockpuppet is suspected and enough evidence presents itself, an investigation may be begun. One never need await the outcome of an AFD discussion, nor leave any (as yet unfouneded) allegation to color another's comments. Perhaps you might wish to strike the accusations above until such time as an investigation is actually brought? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree and feel that he now meets WP:ENTERTAINER (the TV roles and main roles in notable plays) and general notability given the extra newspaper coverage I found, but I've already made all my supporting arguments above and will call it a day as any more would probably cause the closing admin to drift off into a coma. Holly25 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I also disagree with Annette46's statement. That Annette46 is not convinced is itself not convincing, specially in light of the editor's well-intended but unfortunate mis-interpretation of guideline. I believe that notability has been shown that the subject meets both the letter and spirit of WP:BIO through WP:GNG for the the article's coverage of the subject's growing (and properly sourced) career in theater and television. And even were this discussion to be full of sockpuppets, notability shown now that the article belongs to Wikipedia, seems apparent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]