Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlee Kumar


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Atlee Kumar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(PROD contested by IP editor, with no reason given.) I have been unable to find evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. One of the references in the article mentions him a few times briefly, the other is a single news report on a site that essential publishes press releases and similar. Searching, I have found lots of web pages mentioning him, but almost everything I have looked at suffers from one or more of the following limitations: unreliable sources (e.g. Facebook, YouTube); sources that are clearly not independent of the subject (e.g. a video of him talking about his own work), or that seem to exist mainly for promotion (including sites that exist to promote people in the Indian film industry, sites that exist to promote the achievement of ethnically Tamil people, etc); pages that only briefly mention him, including some mere listing pages, a two sentence announcement of a film release date, etc. I did find one or two things that might be considered a little better, such as an interview at www.tamiltvshows.net, but even that site describes itself as "merely an video indexing website" (including the word "merely"), and I am uncertain how much weight should be given to its coverage. In any case, even if we give that site the benefit of the doubt, I did not manage to find the sort of substantial independent coverage in multiple independent sources that is needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (Note: The article was created by a banned user, using one of many sockpuppets. I have now seen evidence which strongly suggests that the IP editor who removed the PROD is likely to be that banned editor. That being so, I could simply revert the PROD removal, as any edit by a banned user may be reverted. However, we may as well let this AfD run, so as to see if any other editors have anything to contribute. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

AKA:
 * Gonna opt for DELETE per author's suspected history and per TOO SOON. While the subject can indeed be found written of in a number of sources, these sources seem mostly in relationship to this one film Raji Rani. While the film is arguably notable, under WP:FILMMAKER the debutante director is not quite... yet.  To to meet WP:FILMMAKER we really prefer more than just the one notable project. Allow undeletion or recreation when this man's career grows. For now, we can redirect to the film title. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis of the issues but wish to clarify that while the puppet and master are indeed indef-blocked, a block it is not exactly the same as as a WP:BAN.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was basing what I said on the fact that two of the blocks on the sockmaster are logged with reasons that include the word "banned", as can be seen in the block log here. I have not checked why the two administrators who said that the user was banned thought so, and whether they were right or not. If they weren't, then reinstating the PROD would have been against policy, but it doesn't really make any difference, since, as I said above, I don't intend to do so anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * More relevant to this discussion than blocks and bans is the question of sources. Thanks, Michael, for the link you gave, which is to a useful search site that I didn't know about. I looked at a sample of fifteen of the pages that are listed there, five from each of the first three pages of hits. Many of the pages listed were themselves lists of search results for various newspapers, in which case I looked at one or two of those second-level hits. There was a huge amount of duplication, with numerous slightly different searches on the same newspaper, often giving many of the same hits, so that the total number of different pages that showed up was smaller than you might think at a glance. Almost everything I saw was a page which did not contain substantial information about Atlee Kumar. Some were pages about his film, in which he was mentioned once or twice as the director, but he was not the subject of substantial coverage. Some were pages about other people, and mentioned Atlee Kumar just in passing. One of the pages I saw was no more than an announcement of a planned release date. In fact, of the pages I saw, just one of them was substantially about Atlee Kumar. The long and the short of all this is that, having spent a considerable amount of time looking at these search results, I finished with much the same result that I found earlier from a Google search. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete one film success not enough on its own without more WP:GNG sources in support. (Added the search website to my list of resources.) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2013 (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.