| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Request
edit
I request you to not to spoil my other Edits which has strong reliable sources by calling it a Fluff or a Comparison. An Article with strong reliable source cannot be considered as Promotion. Vaalee (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Vaalee You can request all you like, but that's not going to change my opinion. It's promotional fluff, and it's a ridiculous comparison that has no encyclopedic value. It does nothing but promote the subject by comparing her to someone far more famous. We don't boost article subjects by comparing them to other people. As I mentioned in my edit summary verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and editors have the ability to sculpt the type of content that belongs in the article. The fact that one outlet has decided to point out a very weak physical similarity to Kardashian is of no academic value, and if you were to open this discussion to a wider community audience, you would almost certainly find that few people share your opinion. Unless you can demonstrate what the academic worth of this content is, it should be removed for being promotional. We also have that someone dubbed her the "next Silk Smitha of South Indian film industry". Has the article subject actually accomplished something other than being compared to other people? Seems like that's the main focus of this article—who she's similar to, as opposed to who she actually is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think i am somewhere getting your valid point about the article. Let me re-write it once again. However, If you find the article still promotional after re-writing it, Please help me re-edit. Vaalee (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Cyphoidbomb and Vaalee, I am still trying to clean the Article with a proper maintenance. As far as your opinion about the Article coming off as Promotional is not agreeable. I cannot agree to your opinion. If you google Kavita Radheshyam-Kim Kardashian, you will come across many trusted outlets and sources which claims the same. If these sources sound promotional, Then most of the Articles on Celebrities here are Promotional.
- Daily Mail Source [1] clearly claims celebrities from around the world who are dubbed and tagged as Kim Kardashian. Another source, Movie News Guide [2] also claims the same along with several other outlets available on the net. I apologize, i removed the discussion as i thought the whole discussion was baseless. If you feel you want to invite more users in the discussion, it's your choice.
- I also agree the celebrity is not as famous as Kim Kardashian is, but let us also agree that many trusted sources surveyed this and allowed her this tag. These sources do not claim about her weak physical similarity with Kardashian, but these sources has stressed on her similar looks and sex symbol with Kardashian which stands for an strong academic value.
References
- To address one of your points, you may not remove legitimate talk page discussions. Only vandalism and general chatter should be removed. See WP:TPG. As to your point about promotion, you're welcome to disagree, but I have far more experience looking at biographical articles and I can assure you that your opinion is not consistent with the rest of the Wikipedia community. We aren't here to equate article subjects with other people, we're here to provide neutral coverage about a subject and their activities. Even if we were to include the comparisons to Kardashian and Smitha, that shouldn't go in the lead. These aren't the only things I find promotional, there's also the inclusion of "other famous celebrities", the gratuitous list of these other celebrities. There's also statements like "The award felicitated Kavita for her immense work in Bollywood for all her films" which is clearly weighted. And the incomprehensible statement, "An Online voting was held by Rediff.com to see the user's reaction about her persona could match actress Rekha in the Marathi remake of Khoon Bhari Maang." What? More comparisons? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now you are more specific here. As i mentioned in the talk, i am cleaning up the article more and once i do it, i will remove the News Release notice. As far as comparison is concerned, i will clean up Smitha's comparison as i cannot find many outlet source on that, but Kardashian comparison cannot be moved as there are big outlets claiming on this. The other comparisons you mentioned will also be cleaned from my side. Still, if you find any typography or grammar error, even you are kind enough to fix them. Kittura (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)