Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Dhar (producer)

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Dhar (producer)

[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)

Non notable television producer with no evidence of satisfying either WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Sources cited in the article are interviews and announcement of him stepping down as MD. His only claim to notability is that, during his tenure at Endemol, the company produced a few shows including Bigg Boss and Khatron Ke Khiladi but they were adapted from foreign shows.` Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I won't say 'only'. Someone bringing an absolutely new concept (even if adopted) to television of a country of a Billion people - I think that's something (in my view). I also feel WP:GNG is passed with ease; however, it is ideal for other editors to participate and decide what's appropriate. Thanks for everyone's time on this in advance!

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palmsandbeaches In order to satisfy WP:GNG, sources have to be significant coverage, independent, reliable and cannot be WP:ROUTINE coverage. Most of the sources on the page are announcement and interviews which are not considered independent of the subject. He clearly fails WP:GNG.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHey Umakant Bhalerao! Good morning! You make a very interesting point indeed so I started reading more. WP:GNG - from what I read, doesn't seem to robustly question reliability/independence of interviews. Hence, I read further at WP:INTERVIEW - again, a great resource. From what I can conclude, interviews may or may not be independent/reliable etc. Most of the (like you rightly said), interviews, are in reliable sources seemed to be covered by in-house staff. I think what subject is saying about himself, would be considered as a primary source and hence is obligated to be ignored/omitted. But facts/information provided outside of that, and repeated by multiple other sources is still useful. In fact, I also read a para how content from primary sources could be used.

Also see,

"The longer and more detailed the material, and the more reliable the publication, the more likely secondary-source material in an interview is to have undergone proper fact-checking."

&

"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about their own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported."

Besides, the Forbes article is not an interview [1] It even says "Dhar declined to talk about his new venture, but sources close to him, said that he is up to “something big and exciting in the content space”." Yes, this is an announcement that puts us in WP:ROUTINE but this is change of leadership and a major announcement as against a trivial one. I don't think we can classify all 'announcements' as WP:ROUTINE as a rule. 'General Elections would be soon held', for example, is an announcement but I won't disregard it as a routine coverage (Let's say).

The nutshell statement of WP:INTERVIEW concludes it aptly: "Interviews generally count as primary sources, but commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material."

Thanks for your time on this!

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies that I didn't address the WP:FILMMAKER. I think the subject qualifies for criteria 3:

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

The shows the subject has created would surely be deemed significant and covered heavily :)

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the more important criteria is WP:GNG, and there is not enough significant coverage to pass that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:47, 24 December 2020 (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.