Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Kumar Srivastava (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; consensus was against moving it back to draftspace given the inherent sourcing problems. Mackensen (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ajit Kumar Srivastava (producer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All the coverages are paid coverages. No reliable sources is available. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMMAKER Trakinwiki (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Trakinwiki (talk)  20:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Agrees with nom. Initially I had moved this to draftspace. But the creator moved back without addressing the proper reason. Pillechan  (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  21:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) striking out sock comment. – robertsky (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. The subject's involvement in the films listed in the filmography is as a line producer or an associate producer, or a film that will be released in 2022 and so is too soon.  The references do not establish general notability.

This article was moved from article space to draft space by User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, but was moved back by the author. Analysis of references and of roles shows that reviewer was right. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not even covert advertising. All sources are clearly paid for. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Creator has requested return to draft at my TP (User talk:Eagleash). Eagleash (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The creator, or an associate of their creator, has now requested draftification, after move-warring to prevent draftification. Please do not move this article while this AFD is in progress, and do not interrupt this AFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment to Closer - If the consensus is to draftify, please include a note that the draft may only be accepted through AFC and not unilaterally. Thank you.    Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Sachin.cba (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with nominator. All coverages are paid. No reliable sources are found. Even the articles have backlinks of his own website. Seems self-promotional case.Divineplus (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Comment I think it should be sent back in draft as there are many links to Marathi sources of this person which are yet to be submitted, which I am investigating.Thank Yoy. Azaishah2000 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Research and review is in progress, if able to add few supportive and reliable link so it could not be appropriate to delete it. Zgz.or (talk) 14:52, October 10, 2021 (UTC).
 * Speedy Keep This is a notable person, who has contributed a lot for regional films, I believe instead of removing this page, put the tag of 'more citations needed'.Thank You.Urbanlife1984 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I am new editor i don't know much about this matter then experienced editor, but after checking this page and collecting information from other sources, i found this person noteworthy who has contributed a lot to Marathi films. It seems to me that better then deleting this page, it would be better to put an advertisement tag on it.Thank You.Priyatungi (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Following WP:BEFORE, first: a read through 5 of the sources that are currently present on the page, even that that labelled as 'Hindi Title' (Google Translate mobile app has translations on the fly. Machine translation aside, it is pretty readable), are of a single press release that promotes the subject's new publicity agency to that effect. Thus, it is possible to remove 4 of the 6 references here. The only exception is the source for Premaatur, which is totally irrelevant to the subject in its content. This backs the analysis by . Second: A search on Google (Google Search, Google News) reveals that there is no other sources beyond what is cited. Can this article be improved with its current sourcing? No. Can it be improved with new sources? possible. But should the article be kept? On the basis that 5 of 6 sources are a single press release; that the subject has a publicity agency; and a totally brand new editor (and a couple of somewhat new editors) appearing in the AfD and vote stacking, I am inclined to think that there are some elements of WP:UPE, WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and/or meat sock involved. I don't recommend draftification, as an AfC reviewer, I would have rejected the draft (if each of the keep vote here thus far was a declined submission as a draft, given that there was not much of an improvement in the time between their keep votes). Thus, my vote to delete. – robertsky (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * random musing. If this article survives, and an Advertisement tag is placed, wouldn't this be publicity for the subject and the publicity agency? – robertsky (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - The two Speedy Keep statements above do not cite any of the Speedy Keep policies, and are not really policy-based at all. The closer already knows this, but I am writing it anyway.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The person is non-notable and lacks reliable sources to establish notability. 007sak (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.