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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
(edit conflict) @Beezo7474: It's interesting that you registered the day after I blocked Trafficcityllc and suggested a lot of links that that user added, which I removed because they don't meet our reliable sourcing criteria. I suggest that you disclose your employment/relation to Traffic City llc on your user page. Most of the archival links you suggest are not reliable sources. I don't understand why I have to explain that ChaCha.com is unreliable. It's no different than asking someone on the street "hey, what do you know about this?" The moviesplanet.com source might begin to qualify as reliable, except that we can't verify that the page wasn't user generated or even just a directory listing. The closest thing that might qualify as reliable and noteworthy was the worldfest.org site. I removed that from the article with the edit summary The "award" bit, as seen at https://worldfest.org/remiwinners/2003.xls , shows 1004 entries. That's a directory listing (from an organization that we don't even have an article on), not an indication of any sort of acclaim. Zoominfo is an obvious directory listing. The Variety page might as well be a directory listing as it doesn't say anything about Monkarsh. We don't just put up an article on someone because they're in the phone book. The rest of the links you provide are the mobile versions of the articles I linked and discussed in my first post -- they aren't about Monkarsh, they barely mention him. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Out of all of the links provided above, only four (Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 10) seem to have potential, but out of those four only No. 2 amounts to anything more than a single name mention. Such sources might be acceptable as citations to verify certain article content about Monkarsh, but I'm not sure that even they represent the type of WP:SIGCOV generally required by WP:BIO or even WP:FILMMAKER. Having a film screened at the Cannes Film Festival seems impressive, but not sure if that's enough on its own to establish notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 is from "PRNewswire." At the bottom, it says "SOURCE Josh Monkarsh." It was a press release written by the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trying to establish Wikipedia notability as a filmmaker seems to be the only plausible way to argue that this article be kept since being Wikipedia notable as a real estate developer seems out of the question in my opinion. I've tried doing a little more digging for stuff, but have come up empty. Since a press release written by the subject (I missed that the first time around) cannot be used to establish Wikpedia notability per WP:NRV, that pretty much does it for all the links provided above. Maybe Green Olds will turn out to be a huge hit once its released and Monkarsh will become the talk of Hollywood as a result; right now, however, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 10 to be perfectly acceptable source links.Ian.thomson and CAPTAIN RAJU. This individual’s page was added 8 years ago to Wikipedia. Why is it now being subject to deletion? The source links provided offer both noteworthy and accurate information - despite your position on one or more of the websites from where the information originated. Making decisions for deletion based on your personal like or dislike of a source website due to its name is unprofessional and in the case of “ChaCha.com” discriminatory on several levels, despite the website no longer being active (likely due to the individual’s page being created 8 years ago). With respect to your position on the individual acting as the source of information for the Cannes Film Festival press release, this should have zero relevance as doesn’t change the fact the individual had a film premiere at the film festival. I am also seeing the individual is a partner at PalmStar Media Capital (PSMC) as of 2011.
For further validation regarding the individual’s position at PSMC, see article below referencing the individual’s position as being a representative of PSMC.
I’m not sure how you missed this? This film festival has been around for over 50 years and should without a doubt be added to the Wikipedia database. If you search the festival name you will find other mentions of it on other individual’s Wikipedia pages Beezo7474 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beezo7474: Try reading what people said instead of responding as if they haven't already addressed and dismissed your points. That you're continuing to address Captain Roju (who has done nothing except tag the discussion) proves you aren't paying any attention. This is the second time you've brought up sources that other users have shown do not fit our reliable sourcing standards or do not provide in-depth coverage. You seem to mistakenly believe that blathering on and repeating the same dismissed points will have any effect besides disruption.
Again, source number 2 was a press release written by Josh Monkarsh, not Cannes. That's no different than saying something is true "because I say so." In fact, given how obvious it is that you're either Monkarsh or someone working for him, it's dishonest to pretend that the press release is from Cannes.
Again, sources 8, 9, and 10 barely mention Monkarsh's name only once. Only a total narcissist could count that as "in-depth coverage" about themselves. The same goes for the Screendaily.com source that I already addressed in my first post.
Again, ChaCha.com was a website where you asked random people to search stuff on Google for you and not give the answers. The business model favored immediate responses over correct responses. It is beyond indefensible. You need to explain why asking random people who would rather get 2 cents for hitting the first answer to pop up are somehow a reliable source if you want to defend ChaCha.com.
And agin, as I explained for the WorldFest Houston award -- there were over 1000 recipients. The award doesn't really indicate notability if they were giving them like medals at the Special Olympics.
As for your new-ish points: just because a mistake was made 8 years ago and no one noticed doesn't mean that it shouldn't be cleaned up.
It doesn't matter if Monkarsh works/ed with PalmStar Media, notability is not inherited. That's why we don't have articles on every cashier at Walmart (that and we're not a directory). I addressed the screendaily.com source in my first post -- it barely mentions his name once. The deadline.com sources you bring up don't mention Monkarsh at all!
To be as clear as possible, you need to bring up multiple, independent, professionally-published sources that are explicitly about Monkarsh (not just mentioning him in passing but describing him). They cannot have been written by him or by some idiot getting paid 2 cents to click the first Google result that pops up for someone. He has to be the primary focus of the source (not just mentioned in passing, not just one of more than a thousand subjects). An article can get by with just three such sources but millions of name-drops or self-written sources do nothing.
@Beezo7474: Regarding your comment This individual's page was added 8 years ago to Wikipedia. Why is it now being subject to deletion?, please take a look at WP:LONGTIME for more details. Basically there have been lots of articles added to Wikipedia over the years which probably shouldn't have been added in the first place. Pretty much anyone can create an article, and sometimes it just takes time for it to be noticed and assessed. This often seems to particularly be the case when the subject is not very well known and the article doesn't get lots of page views, etc. It's only tends to be when the article is flaggd for some kind of problem that more experienced editors start looking at it and assessing it. Wikipedia editors are all volunteers will come and go as they please. Most editors tend to work on subject matters that they personally find interesting as opposed to general monitoring, maintaining and assessing existing and new articles. There are more than six million Wikipedia articles with more being created daily, but there are only so many volunteers willing to dig through these various articles and assess them. So, some of them sometimes slip by unnoticed for years before they appear on someone's radar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson First you make a conniving and discriminatory fueled remark with respect to “Cha-Cha.com” and now you make an even more derogatory reference to special needs individuals by discussing the special Olympics in a demeaning way? Wow. Based on your characterization on the items above I don’t believe you are fit to be a reputable contributor. Your only sound argument here is the Cannes Press release from over 10 years ago! You have not fully addressed the other items mentioned with the exception of Worldfest Houston which is mentioned on other Individual’s Wikipedia pages (did you bother looking?). With respect to my recent points, if notability is not inherited, then why should I as a new contributor take this conversation with you seriously? Do you Ian Thompson, represent the sole voice of Wikipedia? No, you don’t. This statement is contradictory to your goal to remove this page. And your apparent sociopathic views should not undermine or overwrite past contributor efforts. I understand several of my points have been repeated and this was primarily for your eyes alone (and one or two others yet to dispute my recent points) in order to demonstrate my firm position and disagreement with your request for the deletion of this page. And as a new Wikipedia contributor I will center my focus on blocking you from further deletion actions of other Wikipedia pages you nominate that have a similar backstory to the nominee’s page. Marchjuly All good points and thank you for your input. You are significantly clearer headed than Ian. I still however am of the opinion the page should not be subject to deletion due to the reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beezo7474 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're going to lie about your obvious relationship to the subject, then there's not really any reason in giving you opportunity to respond. If your next action is anything besides disclosing your financial affiliation with Traffic City LLC and/or Josh Monkarsh (as instructed on your talk page), you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson See WP:No personal attacks. I am referencing to your undermining of cha-cha.com due to the name of the website. For all you know I could be Latino and found your dismissiveness of the site (due to the name alone) to be insulting. I will allow you to defend yourself on this topic. With respect to your claims that I am somehow affiliated to the individuals page and or the individuals company you are mistaken as I am here to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia by fighting for the survival of this page as my first objective. More pages nominated for deletion by you to follow. And I am within the rights of the first amendment to do so. Beezo7474 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beezo7474: The focus of this discussion whether this article should be kept; so, that's where the focus needs to stay. If you feel that Ian.thomson's comments or behavior is inappropriate and not in accordance with WP:CONDUCT, then the place to discuss that is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You're welcome to start a discussion there if you want, but before you do you should carefully read through Wikipedia:ANI advice first so that you fully understand what that entails.
My opinion about the sources you're citing above is the same as Ian's; they either don't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source or they don't provide the WP:SIGCOV needed to establish Monkarsh's Wikipedia notability and nothing you've posted since then has changed my opinion. The problem with cha.cha.com has nothing to do with the name of the site, but everything to do with the fact that it was mostly user-generated content and as such is not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. A discussion of the website previously was held Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 121#ChaCha, but you can ask about it again at WP:RSN if you feel it should be considered as a reliable source in this particular case.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Only one vaild vote, rest is WP:NOTHERE - needs more !votes in order to have clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:BLP sourced only to IMDb and no clear claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:07, 24 September 2018 (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.
