Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunjan Menon

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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunjan Menon[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)

(sorry if I messed up the formatting, the page curation tool failed to create the AfD page for some reason, so I am renominating with Twinkle)

I feel like there ought to be sources rising to the level of WP:GNG, but I just have not found them despite searching.

First of all, there is decent-ish coverage related to The Firefox Guardian such as this review or that PR from Jackson Wild who gave it an award. I think the film is notable (if you disagree, go nominate it separately), but WP:NARTIST requires more than one notable film.

There’s a lot of interviews (example) or podcast invitations (example). Also, she wrote [that piece](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/the-red-panda-lives-in-mountainous-himalayan-trees-yet-it-is-endangered/articleshow/80712399.cms) for the Times of India. None of those count because they are not independent coverage, but at the same time it’s still more than the average photographer, hence my feeling that there should be something around the corner. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 14:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to the Firefox Guardian. No sources for her other than picture captions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. This does not necessarily require multiple works. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find a major contribution, she's taken photos that got published. It's almost routine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking of The Firefox Guardian here, then isn't this a film she directed (apart from produced, shot, acted and edited)? How is this related to photos getting published? Jay (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Maddy that the nom's contention of WP:NARTIST requires more than one notable film is incorrect. Jay (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that multiple films are not needed, but I doubt that the Firefox Guardian is a significant or well-known work. That is a higher bar than notable, which I do not think the film passes. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant / Well-known / Notable - they are subject to interpretation. I tried to get some clarity here: WT:Notability (people)/Archive 2022#Well-known, significant and notable, but unless there is consensus, we'll have to go with our own interpretations. Jay (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I have not been active at AfD for at least five years, so I have not followed recent developments. I thought that "significant or well-known" was waaaay above notability. That seems out of the range of opinions shown in the discussion, which goes from "notable or even lower" for a minority to "a step above notable" for the majority (but only a step, not a Mona-Lisa-level of fame). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be subjective, yes, but I feel getting shortlisted for a BAFTA and a mention by the UN and EU def counts as notable/well-known?! Sharonthomasr (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep::Hey everyone, I argue the article should stay because, within the wildlife filmmaking niche, she's a notable personality. It's not a mainstream genre but in the context of Indian and International wildlife filmmaking industry itself, she is quite well known, has given a TEDx talk and was featured by BBC Earth in their series Close Encounters as well. Here are some other podcasts [1] [2] I came across which don't work as references in the main article itself but I used them as research to write and are useful for this discussion. I've heard one of her talks online and find her very inspiring. (Also, unrelated and playing the devil's advocate here but I don't think conservation filmmakers get enough time or money to do their PR so the articles seem quite genuine but I could be biased). (example) Also on the advisory board of a notable film festival and the description there also suggests she's worked on more than one films as per what someone else pointed out. Hope this helps. Sharonthomasr (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article in a local newspaper (you might have to translate it) which can count as independent source. And another independent coverage in a South African news outlet - "Akanksha Sood Singh, Doel Trivedy, Gunjan Menon, and Malaika Vaz are four women reinventing the Wildlife Conservation filmmaking sector in India" Sharonthomasr (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

documentarytelevision.com is a (very) passing mention. Anything interview-like (talks by her, exchanges on podcasts etc. etc.) is considered non-independent. So all that is worthless for WP:GNG, which requires that each qualifying source is at the same time (1) reliable, (2) independent, and (3) contains significant coverage. The fact that wildlife filmmaking is niche, that she does useful work, that her life story is inspiring etc. are not excuses to get out of GNG requirements either.

That being said, patricka.com source is definitely on the better side. Maybe a bit routine, I guess ("the film director came through the village and did film stuff"), but still better than everything that was in the article before.

I am not withdrawing the nomination (yet) because even if the patrika source counts toward GNG we still need multiple good sources and I do not see another one. If someone can search other sources in Hindi, which I cannot do (wink, wink), I would bet there’s other good stuff. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do these count as independent? (I'm really sorry, I've taken your feedback and explanation into account but still new to this...thanks for your patience! In the end if this helps make the article better than win-win for all!)

1. Independent, reliable and significant coverage article about a talk on a major platform...

https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/forest-laws-diluted-environment-global-priority-india-young-conservationists-1862985-2021-10-09

2. Box text in this article by someone else: https://sanctuarynaturefoundation.org/article/entangled-oceans

3. Not significant but considerable? " and India based award-winning wildlife filmmaker and writer, Gunjan Menon, The Firefox Guardians. Menon is a National Geographic Explorer, has won multiple accolades with over 40 international awards across 15 countries, and received the JACKSON WILD Rising Star 2020 award."

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Independent-Streaming-Platform-EarthStream-to-Focus-On-Supporting-Non-Profits-Debuts-20211020

4. https://redpandanetwork.org/post/A-Photo-Within-A-Photo-Within-A-Photo-The-Cosmic-Side-of-Red-Panda-Conservation

5. Saw this today, to lighten up the mood ;) (It's a comic strip, in case you don't see the image, try opening in safari or incognito)

https://www.greenhumour.com/search?q=red+panda

6. http://thevibe.asia/7-female-filmmakers-from-india-who-are-documenting-the-wild-on-lens/

Sharonthomasr (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need sources that are simultaneously (A) independent, (B) reliable, and (C) significant coverage. If you have one hundred interviews in big newspapers (failing "independent"), one hundred random blog posts (failing "reliable"), and one hundred entries in film listings (failing "significant coverage"), all those three hundred sources are worth nothing compared to one source that meets all three criteria.

So from your sources, #1 fails A and maybe C (it only repeats what she said at that conference), #2 fails A and probably C (repeats what Beyond Premieres says about themselves), #3 fails C, #4 fails C and probably A (it is mostly about Menuka Bhattarai), #5 fails all three (yes, I know it was a joke :)), #6 fails C and possibly A (it uses the same picture as other articles, which hints that Menon provided material for the article).

That’s short but I did not want to write a wall of text - if you disagree with any of those assessments, fine, let’s talk about that specific source. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess at this point we just disagree because of the subjectiveness and contextual importance of the topic and I feel there's not much I can do to convince you more if you've made up your mind. We've both put forth our points so we can let the community decide and vote and even though in this case, I don't agree, this breakdown will definitely help my future articles so thank you! :)

Sharonthomasr (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with the new sources given above. And I've stuck by vote with the proper wikicode too! lol Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep She has worked on more than one film and has done other things too. Using the sources above I believe there is opportunity to improve and expand the article. Deletion would not improve the encyclopedia. Chronotime (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Between Keep and redirect to The Firefox Guardian, I don't have a strong preference. The subject is notable per NARTIST, but there is debate on coverage in multiple independent sources. Agreed, that this is not a case of Subject notable only for one event, however, we also have to see what is currently available in the article. What does the article have that is already not available at The Firefox Guardian, or cannot be moved there? Probably, only the mention of an award from Jackson Wild Rising Star. Should the mention of this award be the deciding factor between having a standalone article vs a redirect? Per the essay WP:Semi-duplicate (which is the case now), it is better to have one redirect to the other. Personally, I have been part of the draft's restoration while in draftspace, and subsequent cleanup, and would have preferred the article to be a lot more about the person, than the 12 minute college thesis project which went on to have a life of its own. This version before the article was significantly trimmed was more like it. Also, I would not want this go back to draftspace (if decided) because the move to draftspace was rejected by the page creator. Jay (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The version you pointed out was a part of one of the first few drafts that were written but it was pointed out that it did not read like an encyclopaedic article and had peacock terms. So I trimmed it considerably thinking sticking to just basic facts was more likely the approved style. But I do agree with you, that was a lot better! Sharonthomasr (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2022 (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.