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. Among comments that actually cite policy (or guidelines), consensus is strongly for deletion. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Subramani

[edit]
Sunil Subramani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of nn person. It has been repeatedly created by socks of a blocked (paid) editor, see the article logs, but it is just possible that the most recent creator is not in fact a sockpuppet. In any case, the article's subject is clearly not notable; the current sources are one borderline RS, in the shape of a Deccan Chronicle interview, and the rest is all primary, including two copies of the same press release in different papers. No sources found in a WP:BEFORE search, and there is in fact no credible assertion of notability in the article - being an assistant director does not automatically confer notability. bonadea contributions talk 22:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an example please? Spiderone 17:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has worked as a producer in television serial Love Story, worked as an assistant director on films like Murder, Tumsa Nahi Dekha, Zeher, and as a chief assistant director in films such as Gangster, Life in a Metro, Kites, Barfi and Jagga Jasoos. All these have a Wikipedia pages, I don't know why the person who created the page hasn't tagged these big movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.162.128 (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant directors aren't inherently notable. Neither is a second unit cinematographer. That's not to say that they don't work hard, only that they don't really shape the artistic work in the same way that a primary director or a main cinematographer does. That's why they don't get the same attention from academics. If pressed, I doubt anyone could name a famous American assistant director. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Though I understand the pressure of having to come up with an article subject as part of a college project, coupled with your lack of familiarity with Wikipedia processes, whether or not a person works hard is not the threshold requirement for a Wikipedia article to exist. My uncle Octavius works 14 hour days in a sewer, but nobody's gonna write an article about him. Really, I think your teacher should be apprised of Wikipedia's notability criteria so they're not ignorantly encouraging hapless students to create articles that are just going to wind up deleted. That's going to be very disheartening for students. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there aren't any "credible enough" sources, that's part of the problem. (There is one interview, which is a weak source but at least it's secondary - the rest are all primary sources and as such don't count at all towards a person's notability.) And again, yes he has been an assistant director but that does not confer notability. Working on a notable film does not automatically make you notable - the same thing applies to actors with minor roles in major movies, for instance. Since there has been a lot of problematic editing from the promotion company that originally created the article (repeatedly and using several different accounts), and since that company has been sneaking other promotional articles about non-notable people into the encyclopedia very recently, it is important that this article is given a close scrutiny, and that anybody arguing in favour of a "keep" in fact bases their arguments on Wikipedia policies. Which part of WP:DIRECTOR would you argue is met? I don't see that he meets any of the criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: Interviews are typically considered WP:PRIMARY, no?[5] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: You are right of course. I must have been mixing "primary" and "self-published" up in the dark morass of my brain and thinking that since the interview was published in a newspaper, at least it wasn't self-published. (And that is why a Swede should not be editing before she's had her coffee ;-) ) Thanks for the catch! --bonadea contributions talk 16:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikiproject template has no bearing on whether the person is notable or not, and adding such a template is not an endorsement of notability. I'm not going to second-guess Cyphoidbomb's opinions, but I promise you that they know that the deletion discussion takes place here and not on the article talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point here is, that a Wikipedia administrator had only already approved the page when it was tagged for a speedy deletion,, then why do others keep tagging it for deletion. If this would be the case, then a person has to keep checking their page to make aure it sticks. I don't understand this. This is not how it should work, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.160.247 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No administrator "approved" the page. I merely added WikiProjects to the talk page. This has nothing to do with approval. It's basic categorization. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's obvious collusion here. 106.215.*, 106.219.*, 223.176.* Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Short films are not inherently notable. Anybody with a YouTube channel can produce and distribute a short film. Further, we don't decide these discussions by voting. The comments need to address existing guidelines, such as whether WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:GNG has been satisfied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, that is exactly what I'm saying. The point being made by my friend in the above vote is that he has written and directed two critically acclaimed short films in addition to being a director of a Bollywood movie, Fuddu, and a supervising producer for a very popular television show, and a chief assistant director and assistant director on big Hindi movies like Barfi, Murder and Zeher. Surely, I understand your point that two short movie don't show notability but they do add up in a person's credentials. He has done good work so far both in Indian and Television industry and being Indian Journalism students, ww decided to dedicate a Wikipedia page for it. We even followed all the norms and gave proper sources bearing popular Indian publications like the Times of India, Deccan Chronicle etc. In order to show the notability of the movies and television shows he has worked on, we even provided the links for the same. We are hopeful that the closing admin will consider our views and Sunil Sir's before taking their decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.173.44 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can you know what "Sunil Sir's [views]" are? --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, I never said Sunil sir's VIEWS! I missed out the word contributions, what I meant was Sunil Sir's contributions; so let's not conjecture and question people's intention for no reason. All I was doing was keeping my views forward. I don't know Sunil sir's view nor do I know him or have even met him. I'm just a person giving a notable personality in the film industry respect for his work. I'm just 22, so doing equate me saying SIR to anything. This is the way I address elder people in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.161.55 (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also [6] and [7], with the post above being first added and then removed by different IPs in two of the relevant ranges. --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To address the comment in the post, this is the same argument that has been shown repeatedly in the discussion above to be irrelevant to notability, especially as there are exactly zero secondary sources in the article. If he were notable, he would have been noted - Wikipedia's definition of notability is based on that. --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rajni Sharma's comment is akin to "The subject has worked hard in Indian entertainment, and even though I have no idea what Wikipedia considers notable, I think the person is notable." The issue here isn't whether or not you think they're notable, the issue is whether or not they meet Wikipedia's community standards for notability. If you don't bother to address that, your vote holds no weight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just gave my honest opinion and my honest vote. Also, when I'm not nosing in on your opinions and vote, how can you do that on mine? I had previously posted without logging in, when I realised that, I deleted it and posted the exact same words again. I'm entitled to my opinion, you are to yours. Also, being an Indian films aficionado, my vote is to keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.172.242 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you responding to? It's not necessary (and it's actually quite distracting) to respond with bolded Comment every time you reply. If you're responding to a specific point, indent with colons like the other indented responses, please. Typically editors might use a bolded Comment if they're making a statement that is unrelated to specific points made by others. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2017 (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.
More