Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Ahanchian

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/draftity. Simultaneously closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Ahanchian. Both discussions have clearly found consensus that this person and this case have not been shown to meet our notability guidelines, and as such, there is consensus to delete. However, I rarely decline good-faith requests for draftspace work, and in this case there is a possibility that one notable article may be rescued where two cannot; hence, I'm draftifying. I am going to WP:IAR a little, and require that, given the clear consensus in the AfDs, a) this article/these articles only be recreated via AfC, b) these discussions be linked in a way that the AfC reviewer will read them, and c) some source material be included that is new, substantive, reliable, and independent of the subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Ahanchian[edit]

[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)

The current version of this article has a lot of issues, including GNG and BLP sources. This is a new article after another was AfD'ed on 7 January 2011 under the name "Amir Cyrus Ahanchian". Joojay (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. The IMDb sources are not the only sources in the article. There are reliable independent sources which provide significant coverage particularly in the sections on the court cases. Amirah talk 21:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article needs to be restructured then, because the court cases are not currently well highlighted and much of this article is about his career in Hollywood (which has very few RS sources). I see you made another article only about the one of the court cases Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al, is there a need for two articles on this topic? Joojay (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there is a need a bio article and the court case sources are evidence of notability. If you think the article needs to be restructured rather than deleted then there is a different tag for that. Amirah talk 21:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be deleted, I don't see GNG here. If you think you can prove this, I welcome you to do so. The current sources do not support your statements. This reads like an autobio. Joojay (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which current sources, which statements? Are you talking about the bio page or the awards section of Yellow which I mentioned in my last comment? Amirah talk 23:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have many WP:RS, and those few it does have are not extensive coverage of Cyrus Ahanchian. The following are not considered RS sources: Net Worth Post, Forbes, Moon River Studios. Also Wikipedia does not use a Google Search box as a citation or as common evidence for a biography of a living person WP:BLP, WP:BLPRS If you remove these citations in addition to the IMDB citations, it leaves us with maybe one or two sentences. Joojay (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying, but I think there are enough reliable sources to establish notability if you include those about the court cases. If you can see that the court cases have relevance to his career as an executive producer then they should be counted. The court case section alone is far more than just one or two sentences. I have written about this in my comments below but have not had any response to those comments. Amirah talk 15:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about the IMDb sources in the filmography. I have compared the pages of other filmmakers who have filmography tables. Most of them don't have any references at all in them. If they do they are very often references to IMDb. The tabulated material in the filmography section is not contentious and as notability is established elsewhere in the article, does not add to the argument for deletion. Amirah talk 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article talk page the article has been assessed by WikiProject Biographies as a Start-Class article with 'low' importance, which means that 'Subject is notable in their main discipline'. The article has also been accepted by the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers as 'Subject is notable in their main discipline', project members of Actors and Filmmakers would have a better understanding that the court cases are relevant to the subjects discipline. Amirah talk 17:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: these are not my "opinion" on citations being poor, it's clearly written. Large movies, like Yellow have many executive producers, why is this one notable? Joojay (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His involvement with the movie Yellow in particular is notable due to the fact that as an executive producer he was involved in the court case over Yellow and his comments on it were cited in an independent news source about the court case. Amirah talk 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (although the article title could be redirected to Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al). I cannot find any significant coverage of the individual to support WP:GNG or WP:BASIC notability, and none of the reliable sources currently in the article support notability of Ahanchian. The impact of the legal case doesn't extend notability to the person (WP:BLP1E). Adding to my statement, since WP:FILMMAKER has rightfully been mentioned and I didn't address it initially: the films that Ahanchian's been associated with don't meet "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". No awards; none of the work has "been the primary subject of an independent and notable work... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Ahanchian is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", he is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. Schazjmd (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The court case was about the person's work, therefore I think it does, but I will look for some additional sources too. Amirah talk 21:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FILMMAKER point 3. The court case itself about National Lampoon's TV: The Movie and it's verdict shows that Ahanchian played a significant role in creating a well known work . . . There are also other well known films which he played a significant role in creating, such as Yellow (2012 film), Cougars, Inc. and Open House (2010 film), as Executive Producer. Amirah talk 22:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me saying User:Schazjmd, I think what you have said above about none of the films having received awards is untrue. Yellow (2012 film) was 'awarded "Best Film" at the Catalina Film Festival on September 22, 2013'.Amirah talk 23:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of that in his article, but thanks for pointing it out, AmirahBreen. As a relatively minor award, it is not sufficient to change my evaluation of his notability against the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference to the Catalina Film Festival award to the article. Also, please bare in mind that the 4 criteria for WP:FILMMAKER which you have repeated above and underlined are an either/or requirement. However, the second Case Law on copyright which resulted from his court case was an important new concept in filmmaking, see Joint authorship. The case itself and his role in the case has been widely cited by peers and successors. Peers include others involved in the legal profession as well as others involved in the filmmaking industry, as we are discussing the role of an Executive Producer which includes legal and copyright work. His experience in court has also been used subsequently in a court case over Yellow. [1] His experiences in court are unique to himself in the industry, and an important asset to him in his role as an Executive producer. If you don't understand that the role of an Executive Producer includes copyright and legal work when required, then please see the Wikipedia article I have linked to. In Ahanchian's case it certainly has done. Your reference to WP:BLP1E above does not stand because there has been more than one event covered by independent sources, both his own court case over National Lampoon and his role in the court case over Yellow. According to BLP1E all 3 of the conditions must be met for the article to warrant deletion, and the first condition is not met. Therefore the impact of the legal cases (plural) do extent notability and the reliable sources on the legal case should also be counted toward WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Amirah talk 10:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some further edits to the article to make the points I discussed above clearer in the article itself. Please reconsider in light of this. Amirah talk 13:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Catalina Film Festival is a major film festival in Hollywood and the award of 'best film' is quite an honour. But nevertheless the film does not need to have been awarded a major award to be 'well known'. It is a matter of opinion, as the term 'well known' is not measured quantitatively. I respect your opinion, but I beg to differ. The film 'Yellow' is well known and the fact that it was awarded 'Best Film' at the Catalina Film Festival substantiates that. Amirah talk 23:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no serious claim to notability here:

He was one of several executive producers (none of the others of which, I note, have merited a Wikipedia article) for the film Yellow (2012 film), which won a "best film" award at a relatively minor (only 10 years running) film festival. At most, this argues for notability of the film (which is actually notable on its own merits, film festival aside), but that notability is not inherited by one of its executive producers. "Executive producer" is one of those Hollywood titles, anyway: it could mean anything from direct involvement and oversight in the filmmaking, such as the budget guy the director has to answer to... or it could be just an investor.
He was part of a non-notable copyright case (Ahanchian v Xenox Pictures Inc., et al is deservedly up for its its own AFD).
He got two scholarships.
He was the youngest guy to get a small business loan from a particular bank.

None of this adds up to notability. It's been deleted once already; I don't see anything in this new reincarnation to suggest that that decision was wrong. Only the creator of both of these articles is arguing for its retention. It reads very promotional, and I would not be surprised if there's a WP:COI going on here. TJRC (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His involve in the film Yellow has been established by news coverage in reliable sources. You have written above what Executive producer can mean, but there is actually evidence of what his role included in this particular case. Yellow was released after the previous deletion. Also, the case of Ahanchian v Xenox doesn't have to be notable itself as a court case to contribute toward notability of the person who was involved in it. Establishing notability of a court case is quite different to establishing notability of an executive producer. The fact that he got two scholarships and a bank loan does not detract from his notability as an executive producer. There is no COI. I would like to move the article back to draft to do some further work on it. Amirah talk 10:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above comment testifies to the notability of the film Yellow, but I don't see the coverage that translates that to notability for one of its producers. Reywas92^Talk 02:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered that above. The notability is established by his involvement in the Yellow court case which was covered by independent sources. This discussion has got quite long and complex, because you don't see it does not necessarily mean that it isn't there. Amirah talk 09:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the statement, "because you don't see it does not necessarily mean that it isn't there", but it should be in the WP article for it to be considered notable (notable, as defined by Wikipedia). And to add it to the article it needs to be reliable sources (reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia). If you can't find any articles to fulfill this, it would need to be deleted especially since this is a living person. Joojay (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm confident that more evidence can be found for notability. I would like to move the article back to draft. Amirah talk 10:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice, which is your vote? Joojay (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Seems notable with multiple films to his credit. Fair multiple roles to pass WP:ENT. One reference I found [2]. 81.133.96.60 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does that reference indicate notability? TJRC (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2021 (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.