Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramkishan Suthar

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkishan Suthar

[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)

Fails in WP:GNG , WP:BIO Worldiswide (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for any biography because the subject of the article doesn't have any notable honours or nominations, no particularly notable contributions, or an entry in any country's national biography. As this biography fails all three points, it is eligible for deletion. All mentions I could find of the subject are trivial: mostly primarily talking about works that he played a part in. I don't see how we could disambig this or merge it, so deletion seems to be the only solution. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your evaluation of the biography article. I understand that the subject lacks notable honors, nominations, and significant contributions, and that the mentions of the subject are primarily related to works they were involved in. I agree that notability is an important criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia.

However, I would like to highlight a few points that could warrant further consideration before proceeding with deletion. While the subject may not have received notable honors or nominations, it's worth exploring whether they have made any significant contributions within their field or industry, even if they are not widely recognized. Additionally, it's important to carefully assess the reliability and independence of the sources used to determine the subject's notability.

Furthermore, although the mentions of the subject may currently appear trivial, it's possible that with additional research and sourcing, a more comprehensive picture of their significance could emerge. It may be worth exploring the potential for expansion and improvement of the article rather than opting for immediate deletion.

Before making a final decision, I encourage engaging in a discussion with other editors to gather diverse perspectives on the article's notability and potential solutions. Collaboration and consensus-building within the Wikipedia community often lead to better outcomes.

Ultimately, I respect the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, and I'm open to considering different viewpoints on this matter. I believe that a well-informed and balanced approach will help us reach the most appropriate resolution for the article in question. Atulkulhari007 (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems that this individual was the editor (the proper editor credit, not assistant or additional etc) for Ab Dilli Dur Nahin (2023 film), a notable film that has multiple reviews that meet WP:ICTFSOURCES. This qualifies the subject for WP:FILMMAKER.3 —siro χ o 07:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am continuously improving the article as I am getting sources. Atulkulhari007 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*::Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now can I remove the notice from the article? And how will it go away? Atulkulhari007 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Atulkulhari007 Usually Afd runs for 168 hours and I can see one delete vote. You might want to wait for closing administrator to make their decision. Okoslavia (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I find in a search shows how WP:ANYBIO is met. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:ANYBIO is pretty much never used as an exclusionary criteria. —siro χ o 18:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible UPE promotion. Discussion on my talk page giving me an impression of COI. Okoslavia (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a clear case of COI. Please see my talk. Okoslavia (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can't explain you properly but there is no one promoting here Atulkulhari007 (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have written the article with sufficient sources and information. This user @Siroxo also confirmed that the source appears to be that this person was the editor (not proper editor credit, assistant or extra, etc.) of Dilli Door Nahin Abhi (2023 film), a notable film that has multiple reviews at WP:ICTFSOURCES matches. This makes the theme eligible for WP:FILMMAKER.

And I have seen other articles which have been approved even though they have very few sources. I do not know on the basis of which policy it was done. I do not mean to say that I am doubting the policies of Wikipedia or this article is also correct on the basis of the same policies.

Despite this, if you feel like it, then it is okay. Ultimately, I respect Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I'm open to considering different points of view on the matter. I believe that a well informed and balanced approach will help us to reach the most appropriate solution for the article in question. Atulkulhari007 (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Siroxo. It seems worth noting that the nom and at least one of the delete !votes seem to be misapplying WP:ANYBIO as setting out necessary rather than sufficient criteria for retention. Ordinarily that would lead us back to WP:NBASIC, but WP:FILMMAKER helpfully lets us dispense with the elaborate exercise of finding and weighing sources against NBASIC in order to reach a decision here. I am thankful for Okoslavia's detective work in exposing the UPE shenanigans in this article. But ultimately I don't think the existence of the article constitutes promotional abuse. As long as having the article serves our purpose as an encyclopedia, the UPE-tainted content can be dealt with through appropriate cleanup tags. -- Visviva (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: After some edits to remove puffery, fix some NPOV issues, gratuitous ref-bombing to bad sites, what's left is somewhat "meh" The editing for the film is the best shot for notability, but there's a single cite to a fairly poor quality review, and nothing in the film's article. The short film for the film festival is the next best option, but it's honestly not much. Really need sources that have in-depth coverage of the person, not the work. WP:TOOSOON for me. Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 22 July 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.