Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudipto Sen

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 delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sudipto Sen

[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)

Has produced a notable film, related coverage all around (taking quotes, etc) but notability is not inherited and there is no significant independent and secondary coverage besides that of the film; fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E applies Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: was specifically profiled and interviewed in 'The Times of India', this amounts to SIGCOV, doesn't matter that the coverage / interview intersected with his film promotion, the SIGCOV means he is presumed notable Jack4576 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this interview? It's not a profile, its a short interview about the film. Interviews are also not independent coverage, and WP:TOI in particular often engages in undisclosed advertorials and pay-for-coverage practices, should never be used to determine a subject's notability on its own. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't independent coverage? Even when that interview is conducted by an independent publication, regarding a topic independent of the subject? News to me. This interview doesn't necessarily look like its been paid for. Jack4576 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming things the subject says are independent of the subject? Interview content fails independence and is primary (per OR, which lists examples of primary documents likeoriginal documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage,... JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that a decision was made to interview him, is a decision that was made independent of the subject.

the fact that he was interviewed means he has been granted significant coverage by the media; even if the claims made in that interview can't be relied upon. Hence the existence of the interview article is independent, but the content of it is not Jack4576 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the media coverage is because of controversies surrounding a film made by him. There is no independent indepth coverage from any reliable sources to meet GNG. He already fails WP:FILMMAKER as the subject is not a part of multiple film productions. Thesixserra (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An interview in a "questionably reliable" newspaper is nowhere near SIGCOV, and no other refs have been proffered as counting toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has been covered by various primary and secondary sources for his previous works. His film "The Last Monk" (2006) has a well referenced article here on Wikipedia. Sources covering the subject and his prior works include: short film "Akhnoor" [1] (2007); an article in 2014 detailing the subject and his career; feature films "Lucknow Times" (2015), and "Aasma" (2018); documentary film "In The Name of love" (2021), covered by The film catalogue, which has similar theme as his feature film "The Kerala Story" (2023). The subject is mentioned with his photograph in this press release by the Government of India for his non-feature film "Gurujana" in 2022. He was the only Indian jury member among the International Jury at the 53rd International Film Festival of India [2]. As such the subject is quite notable. Rim sim (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See gish gallop:
- Indiancine is like IMDB; an user-edited catalog of Indian movies. Not RS; see WP:IMDB.
- Urbanasian - which is not a RS (no editorial policy etc.) - carrying PR.
- An one-paragraph-long coverage of an actress shooting for a film which, incidentally, is directed by Sen. WP:TRIVIAL and we do not rely on TOI for determining notability of film-artists.
- Transclusion of an IMDB page about a film, by AVClub. Not RS; see WP:IMDB.
- Some one-man-run film cataloging website. Not RS.
- A press release by Government Of India. Not RS.
- A news-article that covers the above event in six lines.
TrangaBellam (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with @User:Tayi Arajakate. Grabup (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only BLP quality sourced material to section in The Kerala Story; fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E applies. Currently does not have sourcing for a stand alone bio, but the content will improve the target. If new sourcing about the subject (not 1E coverage) becomes available it can be split. // Timothy :: talk 04:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and TimothyBlue. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TrangaBellam's assessment above indicates GNG is not met. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 20 May 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.