Talk:Rajeev Masand

Need for film reviews
Why is it necessary to have all of Rajeev Masand's movie reviews in Wikipedia? We don't have this for more notable film critics such as Roger Ebert. Why should Masand be an exception? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He isn't and the table has been removed. It doesn't do anything but clutter up the article and has nothing to do with his biography at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have also deleted the section "number ones of Rajeev Masand". It does not add any information about him, and gives the false impression that he has anything to do with these movies. Notthebestusername (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on need for film reviews
--Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is Rajeev Masand even notable? The text of this article is copied directly from here . Unless someone can find third-party sources this article might need to go up for deletion. Even if the aforementioned sources are found, listing all of his reviews is excessive and unnecessary. Copana2002 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This definitely seems like a case of verylong. I don't think any reviewer's entire bibliography of reviews belongs in the article. An external link to a page with links to each review would be more appropriate.--Darknus823 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are still no third-party sources concerning the article's subject. It doesn't really meet the 5 basic criteria of notability. Also, according to the talk page, the user Shyambhagat who created this article is actually Rajeev Masand or someone close to him, a clear conflict of interest. Copana2002 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't. We are not a directory, nor a mirror of his own website. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Respected Editors. I don't know what wrong with the review table of this article. If you see the articles of other Critics, you can clearly see given points and their official comments for number of films. I removed all the controversial comments and points raised by all. But now I don't think so that the unsortable review has a problem. If someone is raising any violation point, it isn't true. Because ultimately the website hosting this articles is been ultimate beneficiary. If some tell me any valid arguments on this point, I will never update this list again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyambhagat (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the list has no place here. This is a biographical article, not a personal website nor a directory listing. Multiple people have already said it doesn't belong here, so please stop trying to add it back. It has no benefit here and it has nothing to do with this man's life. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From RfC - a list of reviews is definitely too much information. Noting the venues that have published his reviews in a single paragraph would be interesting (and indicate notability), but the title and verdict for each film tells very little about the person. The signal to noise ration in the list is too high to be useful for readers of wikipedia.10:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Academic credentials
What is Mr Masand's academic background? What school/s did he attend? When? How was he initiated into film criticism? GhanaDa (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)