Relist From looking over the deletion article I don't believe all the keep replies were answered. The same point was mentioned for deletion, but no conclusive outcome was agreed. I feel this was more of a no consensus arguement than a clear delete. I and others felt this article could be written around at least 4 articles. Personally I think the article should be rewritten around these four articles, as it would change the page dramatically before any decision on its final deletion is made. JP22Wiki (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV is not the "I don't like the decision" fallback. The calls to delete all soundly addressed Wikipedia notability guidelines, and found the sources to either be more about this person's company than the person, or to be of weak or low reliability, one noting that the best source was only a local community paper. The closing admin did not err in judging the consensus of the editors at that AfD. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The keeps were more about how important she is rather than identifying the quantity of coverage about her in reliable sources that are independent of the Porscia Yeganeh. Yeganeh is mentioned in Vancouver Fashion Week kicks off (March 27, 2009) and When women dress up and men look natty (April 10, 2010), but there's not enought there for a stand alone article. The AfD mentioned theafronews.ca and some other sources. The AfD noted that it was a highly promotional article (the editors of that article were jazzed on using sources connected to Porscia Yeganeh and in a way that promoted her), so even with four news articles mentioned in the DRV nom, it is doubtful that the promition issue and WP:GNG issue can be addressed without seeing a draft. Feel free to develop a userspace draft article and return to DRV to ask that it be moved to article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we must endorse the close and therefore the subsequent deletion. JP22Wiki says "I think the article should be rewritten" and there is no reason to stop him from doing that, so the content should be userfied or incubated on request, but for the moment there's a consensus that this material should not appear in the mainspace.—S MarshallT/C 19:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, article has had more than its fair share of consideration at AfD (with two relists), and the preponderance of the delete opinions was absolutely clear. No way this could have been closed differently. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, good close of a difficult AFD. No violations of procedure by the closing admin that I can see, and no indication that the result would be different if it were to be relisted. Lankiveil(speak to me) 06:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. The relatively even nature of the arguments as well as the actual votes commands a no-consensus decision, any other decision would point to an abuse of discretion and self-serving decision. Do not, relist, overturn. Lankiveil's vote above actually supports the case for overturn, citing "a difficult AfD." On a personal note, I really dislike the article and feel it should not be on the project, but admin abuse of disretion that makes a self-serving (whether deletionist or inclusionist) decision is harmful and introduces a level of subjectivity that is too great. Turqoise127 22:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I see no reasonable way to have closed that debate other than a "delete" decision. The weight of argument and in particular the timing of the arguments (most of the "keep" opinions early, most of the "delete" opinions being offered with the added advantage of the additional discussion) make the consensus clear. Sources were offered, were carefully evaluated (by at least most of the discussion participants) and were found wanting. As others have noted already, this closure does not preclude the re-creation of a biography if/when sufficient in-depth and reliable sources about her can found. Rossami(talk) 22:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I posted it here Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#:File:Suchitra_Sen_photo.jpg and have been suggested to post here. The file was nominated for deletion, since I did not write "Replacibility" but after getting the notice, I added detailed reasoning in the file. but it seems it has been ignored completely and the file has been deleted. Tito Dutta✉ 06:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who deleted it did respond to you before you posted here, so it seems disingenuous to say your reasoning had been "ignored completely" - there response was "I did read the comment you made prior to the file's deletion, but I didn't find it very convincing. Not only is another non-free file of this actress used in this article (File:Suchitra Sen as Paro in Bimpal Roy's, Devdas (1955).jpg), but the source you provided in your rationale also hints at the possibility of her reappearing in public once again should she accept the Dadasaheb Phalke Award. As such, the deleted image seems to violate point one of WP:NFCC." --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, let's talk on the file. the alternative you have suggested File:Suchitra Sen as Paro in Bimpal Roy's, Devdas (1955).jpg the film Devdas is an old romantic tragedy, where Sen has acted a village girl, village girl like costumes with an artificial scar on head etc (was needed for the film), different make up etc. The image file can be used as Parvati (character) of the film Devdas 1955 but not very good choice as Suchitra Sen in the infobox.
There is almost no chance she will re-appear in public. The award we are talking about, Dadasaheb Phalke Award, actually it was given to her in 2005 but she rejected the award she had to appear publicly to receive the award. Recently she has also not appeared publicly to take West Bengal Government's highest civilian award "Banga Bibhushan"! There is no free alternative. --Tito Dutta✉ 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the additional information above, I think the logical choice at this point is to allow a broader community discussion, so it should be restored and nominated at WP:FFD. This appears to be one of those borderline cases; I'm entirely sure what consensus is regarding low profile individuals as in this case. — ξxplicit 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Nonfree image of living person. We've been through this discussion more than once, and just being a retired performer who doesn't make high-profile public appearances doesn't justify an exception to well-established policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn F7 speedy deletion - Failing Wikipedia:NFCC#1 isn't listed in WP:CSD#F7. For F7, you also need (2) a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty) and (3) where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If that was the case, then maybe the common edit summaries of WP:TW need to be revised. - Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The screen goddess who has been the most famous hermit of Calcutta for three decades has confined herself to her Ballygunge Circular Road house,"
Note, she has not made any public appearance for last three decades. And we need an image of her youth (her last film was released in 1978). I did a very detailed Google search, free image search etc etc before uploading the image. I can not think any other way to collect a free image.
I can not understand (please explain) commercial source etc, but the image was collected from Telegraph newspaper article– both reliable and commercial.--Tito Dutta✉ 15:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, regular and justified NFC speedy. Even if we accepted irreplaceability as per "no longer in public", it would still be replaceable with the other non-free image that is still present in the article. The argument that that other image isn't suitable because of the role and attire shown in unconvincing – her face is shown very well. To Uzma Gamal: CSD#F7 covers not only the immediate speedies in the cases you mention, but also the delayed speedies for replaceability and other similar reasons; this was a procedurally correct delayed speedy after the prescribed 48 hours. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I can't see how this could pass the NFCC criteria. The existing non-free image seems to serve the purpose of showing what she looked like and for the film (important for minimal use of non-free content NFCC#3A), that there are some make up issue can easily be explained and doesn't detriment the overall view of the subject (important for NFCC#8). The image being taken from a commercial source without any transformative usage would fail NFCC#2. For a couple of points "...but not very good choice as Suchitra Sen in the infobox" - there is no absolute requirement we have a picture in infoboxes, if we don't think it's appropriate for the infobox, then simply don't put one there. "And we need an image of her youth" - if we had a current photo (not in her youth) under a free license, then we wouldn't be able to have such an non-free image of her in her youth, the only reason we'd want a picture of her youth rather than a current photo would be to show how she looked whilst performing, which the current non-free photo appears to do. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
