Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyalaya: Difference between revisions

Line 1: Line 1:

⚫

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE____NOINDEX__

:”The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style=”color:var(–color-error, red);”>”’Please do not modify it.”'</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article’s [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.”‎

<!–Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. –>

The result was ”’Weak Keep”’. NACTRESS is not an auto-keep and while provides guidance on when an individual is notable, the individual must still meet GNG and [[WP:NBIO]]. Going err on the side of keep because this person’s career appears to be heading to a place where non-notability is less uncertain, but will note in this close that it does not prevent another nomination after a reasonable amount of time has passed for notability to be reassessed. ”'[[User:Mkdw|<span style=”color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white”>Mkdw</span>]]”’ [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>”<span style=”color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white”>talk</span>”</sup>]] 05:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

⚫

:{{la|1=Priyalaya}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyalaya|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 January 27#{{anchorencode:Priyalaya}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1332427078/cur|edits since nomination]])

Line 19: Line 25:

*::::::Regardless of your goodwill remark and the various other expectations that you have, I’m convinced about your purpose behind this dawdling argument soon after I recommended a course of action. [[User:Retro music11|Retro music11]] ([[User talk:Retro music11|talk]]) 22:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

*”’Keep”’ per [[WP:NACTRESS]], two lead roles in two notable movies. [[User:Kelob2678|Kelob2678]] ([[User talk:Kelob2678|talk]]) 11:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 12:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist —~~><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Priyalaya]]</noinclude~~></div>

*”’Keep”’ as [[WP:NACTRESS]] says {{tq|The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films}} by which it is can presumed that “multiple notable films” meant by “more than one”. In that case, lead roles in two notable films are enough to meet [[WP:NACTRESS]].–[[User:SaTnamZIN|SaTnamZIN]] ([[User talk:SaTnamZIN|talk]]) 00:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br />”’Relisting comment:”’ A source analysis would be helpful in determining consensus.<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist —~~><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Priyalaya]]</noinclude~~></div>

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br />”’Relisting comment:”’ A source analysis would be helpful in determining consensus.<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist –></div>

{{Comment}} The article has been developed since the nomination. –[[User:SaTnamZIN|SatnaamIN]] ([[User talk:SaTnamZIN|talk]]) 03:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

:”The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style=”color:var(–color-error, red)”>Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article’s [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.”<!–Template:Afd bottom–></div>

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 Weak Keep. NACTRESS is not an auto-keep and while provides guidance on when an individual is notable, the individual must still meet GNG and WP:NBIO. Going err on the side of keep because this person’s career appears to be heading to a place where non-notability is less uncertain, but will note in this close that it does not prevent another nomination after a reasonable amount of time has passed for notability to be reassessed. Mkdw ^talk 05:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails notablilty for actors (WP:NACTOR) with her 2 lead roles and 2 supporting roles and no significant sources. The only sources found are photo shoots [1] and besides the other one that is in the article, nothing else was found. DareshMohan (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep–wp:NACTRESS is verifiably met with at least two significant roles in notable productions: reviews of Inga Naan Thaan Kingu and Trending do mention her performances.–~2026-22228-4 (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:SIGCOV. No in-depth/significant coverage sources are cited on the article, its only trivial mentions. The subject seems to belong to the country India and local language sources could possibly be available. However, currently still nothing significant to validate a standalone article. Retro music11 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Basic (“If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability”: assessment of her roles in multiple review cannot be described as ”trivial mentions”). She is indeed Indian and sources in English are available, some being cited on the page. Other sources include other reviews, in English, or Tamil. Example: https://cinema.vikatan.com/kollywood/trending-movie-review ~2026-31842-5 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may additionally want to read WP:ACTOR and WP:SIGCOV, which the subject fails to meet. And ‘the some sources’ being cited on this page don’t seem to validate a stand-alone article, bearing in mind encyclopaedic inclusion. If you believe there are additional reliable sources that this article doesn’t currently cite, please add them. Retro music11 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, she clearly meets Wp:NACTRESS -which I happen to have read a number of times- as indicated above. Her 2 lead roles are significant and the productions notable. Just claiming she fails the requirements of that guideline won’t change that. As for SIGCOV, already replied. As for other existing reviews, assessing her performances, anyone can verify and check them -you too-, as deletion is not clean up. I DID add some. Feel free to check the rest if you are not convinced. I am not going to list them all but they also include https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/inga-naan-thaan-kingu-tamil-movie-review/ (”Priyalaya is the surprise package in the film.There are a lot of scenes that involve the entire ensemble, and Priyalaya manages to stand toe-to-toe with these veterans.” ”This allows Santhanam and Priyalaya to break into a sensuous duet at one time, and turn into Indian versions of Ken and Barbie at another.”) [2] (”Newcomer Priyalaya, who plays the female lead Thenmozhi, is easy on the eye as she silently slips into her character and comes up with a credible performance. What strikes you about Priyalaya is that she has a sense of timing in the comedy sequences and is able to enhance certain funny portions through her subtle contributions.”); ”Kalaiyarasan and Priyalaya are mostly convincing as Arjun and Meera, but the script doesn’t do them any favours. It never earns them likes, shares, or even new followers. They’re made to enact emotionally charged moments that often land with the emotional impact of a scripted Instagram reel: polished but hollow. With the entire runtime almost entirely riding on these two characters, the writing does little to flesh them out. We are neither moved by their choices nor invested in the aftermath of their actions.” https://www.cinemaexpress.com/tamil/review/2025/Jul/18/trending-movie-review-this-social-media-tale-needs-better-algorithm https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movie-reviews/trending/movie-review/122757469.cms A minimal goodwill -or good faith- is expected even from those who vote Delete. ~2026-31842-5 (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are clearly PR excerpts dressed up as sources. How can one be convinced, unless we’re heading to a PROMO.

With regards to your comment on good will, I’m committed to showing good faith per encyclopaedic value and not towards the subject WP:NOT. Retro music11 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

”PR excerpts dressed up as sources”? These are bylined reviews -some, if not most, being quite negative! You don’t seem to be familiar with Indian sources. Check Cinema Express at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, for example. Film reviews in Times Now and Times of India are generally accepted. The same goes for the Hindu. The articles in Vitakan and the Southfirst look acceptable too. You haven’t read the current version of the article, have you? The rest of your comment is not really convincing me of your goodwill. ~2026-36208-8 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: same contributor as vote and comments above) ~2026-36208-8 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the source quality and not the location. Neither the publisher’s nor that of the contributor. I’m certainly familiar with WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

Regardless of your goodwill remark and the various other expectations that you have, I’m convinced about your purpose behind this dawdling argument soon after I recommended a course of action. Retro music11 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTRESS, two lead roles in two notable movies. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been developed since the nomination. —SatnaamIN (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2026 (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.

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment