Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Armstrong

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Whpq is correct though, notability for those in his field doesn't rest on the number of films he has worked on or the fact that he has retired. If that was true then we wouldn't have any articles on people who have died, either! It's about SIGCOV and apparently he hasn't received that yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Armstrong[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)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Based on his own Linkedin page, he received praise for Azhagu Kutti Chellam. For cinematographers to be notable, they should have sources or have worked on fifteen plus films (like other Tamil cinematographers). Furthermore, this guy retired. DareshMohan (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - working on 15+ films or being retired are irrelevant to notability. What is needed is significant coverage about the person and none of the references provided represent significant coverage. Most are just providing a credit of him as cinematographer. The only refernce that provides even a smidge of coverage is this one and it is literally only one sentence. My own search for sources turns up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 23:29, 10 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.