User talk:Asukite/Archives/2022/March

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Asukite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can you please review Priyanka Choudhary?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary (2nd nomination), the article was deleted because Ms. Chaudhary had only one significant role. Her lead roles in four different bollywood films were considered unaccredited because those films were not box-office hits. Still, Ms. Choudhary has done one more significant lead role which was in a web-series named '3g gaali galoch girls' of Ullu app. It is a significant lead role because the series was declared one of the best indian web-series in 2020. Please check [1]. To enforce this point: Ms.Choudhary is currently playing lead role in Udaariyaan, furthermore, she had also played the lead in 2019 in '3g gaali galoch girls' of Ullu app and she had two other significant roles too; she didn't play the lead role but she was one of the parallel leads in Gathbandhan and Yeh Hai Chahatein which is proven through these:[2], [3],[4]. There is no clear definition of 'significant' in WP:NACTOR. So, in that case, Ms. Choudhary did have lead roles in two notable indian TV serial (although parallel, they are significant in indian television shows because parallel leads get equal screen space and have a strong base with central characters. Sometimes they have a better footage than the main leads and some will be halted midway based on the audience reaction and trps) and a web-series. Hence, we should give some weightage to other notable serials (Gathbandhan and Yeh Hai Chahatein) in which she acted in as well. Besides, the write-up is now supported by reliable sources like that from Hindustan Times, The Tribune, Tellychakkar and Times of India which covers in-depth about Ms. Choudhary and WP:VERIFY her notability. Thus, the write-up satisfies WP:NACTOR, but a clean-up is required regarding WP:GNG.--117.246.181.112 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

James E. Webb telescope naming

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

James E. Webb edits; Hi! I made an edit claiming that some think Webb should still have been held responsible for firings of LGBTQ employees at NASA during his tenure; Dr. Erich Matthes directly states this in the cited article on the line I edited, and I can add citations from Dr. Lucianne Walcowicz who was NASA advisor at the time of the decision to rename the telescope. Oluseyi's assertion that there is 'no evidence' also seems hard to justify as neutral, considering it is contested (by Dr. Prescod-Weinstein, Dr. Matthes, Dr. Walcowicz and others) and it is structurally problematic to assert such a negative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.36.137.142 (talk)

I understand, the reason I reverted it was because the edit was in the lead without an appropriate citation, which seemed unduely-weighted. It's okay to add relevant quotations from noteworthy individuals if you carefully follow our policies on reliable sources and attribution - the quote / statements should be added to the appropriate section of the article concerning the subject matter, use quotations when directly quoting and always attribute the statement to whoever made it (i.e. "John Smith said Mary likes apples" or something like that, so that it doesn't look like it's in our words). The lead is only used to summarize key points of the article, so new material shouldn't be added there unless it is covered in-depth elsewhere. In addition - calling somebody a "homophobe" or any other defamatory remark, regardless of how correct or well-sourced it might be, is not appropriate in Wikipedia. ASUKITE 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)