Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carve Your Destiny


 * 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   CSD-G7 on August 11. NAC. Why didn't anyone close this two days ago? Joe Chill (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Carve Your Destiny

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:SOAP, along with the article on filmmaker/entrepreneur Anubhav Srivastava, which appear to be using Wikipedia as a promo tool for the filmmaker and his project. I can find no reliable third-party sources establishing notability. (It is possible there has been sock-puppetry among three accounts in creating these articles.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete appears to be self-promotion, plus a future event (not released yet). Obviously, if it becomes notable, the article can be put back.  Later.  Carve your own notability?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article seems to be for promotional purposes. The "Background" section on the article further indicates that this article may be promotional, as it uses many terms that indicate the apparent significance of the subject, but does not provide enough sources. Netalarm   talk  05:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Hello guys, I have created the page considered for deletion, and I respect your opinion. However, I would like to add that a previous request (when the page was very new) has already been overruled by a Wikipedia administrator. I would like to add the following reasons why this page deserves to stay on Wikipedia, some of the reasons which have already been mentioned in the discussion page.

1) The article on the project only adds value to Wikipedia as this project involves several respected personalities from India, many of them having belonging to reputed organizations or having notable international achievements.

2) This article DOES NOT suggest the viewer to watch the movie. The background of the article has been written from a neutral point of view. All of the achievements of the interviewees have been backed by REFERENCES. There is no promotion.

3) According to Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. The subject of this article HAS received attention in a third party publication. Kindly see the point below.

4) Yourstory.in is a reliable third party source started by a journalist involved with a mainstream Indian channel "CNBC Awaaz." Kindly check this link to verify her affliation with CNBC (http://www.coolavenues.com/bschools/090401/siom-e-cell-1.php) While, the article was written in first person, it was only at the request of the Website itself. This does not mean the coverage was not "third party" as the publication itself has absolutely no affiliation to the subject. The article was scrutinized and edited by editors on the website before it was put on the main page. The fact the article was covered on the page of of a third party publication for several days does establish notability for the resource. Kindly visit http://yourstory.in if you have any doubts regarding it being a third party source. The article was written by the person but it WAS NOT SELF PUBLISHED and was independently verified by the publication before being put up.

5) I am aware that "The interview with Katerina Brodska" cannot be treated as a "reliable" third party source. Although it is not self published, still according to wikipedia "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles ABOUT THEMSELVES, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

6) Wikipedia policy also states that future films for which principal photography have already commenced can be included if the production itself is at least somewhat notable. The notability of the production can be asserted to some extent through its coverage in a third party publication.

I would like to state once again that if the article does seem promotional, kindly give enough time to make relevant edits to make it more encyclopedic.

Thank You.

Destinedfortop (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1) The subject has been covered in AT LEAST one reliable, third party publication with no affiliation to the subject. 2) The work in itself is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", even if it is not widely known yet. 3) The authenticity of the subject HAS been verified through the stills from the interviews and the videos added in the external links section.
 * Comment: To sum up, I would like to add that this article should stay based on the following.

Destinedfortop (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 08:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The reasons don't differ from what I said on the AfD for Anubhav Srivastava, not notable as of now. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 08:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And the refs in the article are irrelevant, this article doesn't need to show notability for Kiran Bedi et al. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 08:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Destinedfortop (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dear Spacemanspiff, as I said before, I respect yours and every other editor's opinion. Kindly check the Anubhav Srivastava deletion discussion page for the counter arguments to the points you mentioned regarding deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anubhav_Srivastava. Also, the references that have been given are keeping in mind the global Wikipedia audience which may or may not know these individuals. The references have been given to back up the statements regarding their awards and achievements.


 * Comment: I had been strongly arguing that some notable events make the participants notable even if secondary source coverage is not explicitly about the participants. In this article however, it seems you have a collection of arguably notable people who have been brought together for an "event." Certainly you would agree that not everything notable people do is notable nor encyclopedic. So, while interesting, I'm not sure you can conclude at this point the movie is worth its own article. From what I can tell, the only sources on the movie are either the movie's official site or other unreliable sources. Since the movie is too new to have had much impact, you would have to be looking for notability concerning its production and things that have happened so far- were there any controversies, records, or disasters discussed in in dependent secondary sources? While I found the information interesting and am consistently curious about India, it may be more appropriate to mention in bio's for the notable people listed that they were recently involved in this production. In the US, we have lots of these type of "movies" and often they are "paid programs" or infomercials that are inherently promotional. This may be different from educational and personally I think a lot of these are "sanitized" to not be of much value to the audience- there were a lot of shows related to real estate to help fuel the bubble for example. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hi Nerdseeksblonde, there is at least one reliable secondary resource in which the production of the film has been featured. As I have already mentioned, http://yourstory.in is a reliable third party source involving a Senior Journalist from an Indian news channel(CNBC TV18). While the feature itself was self written at the request of the website, it is NOT SELF PUBLISHED. The website is not affiliated to the subject of this article and is an absolutely independent third party resource. The editorial control exercised on Your Story is stringent and facts are verified before anything is put up online.

Also, none of the interviewees have received any payments to appear in this film. Most of the interviewees have independent achievements in diverse fields and none of them have a vested monetary interest in this film. They interviews are of value to the audience and educational in nature. Kindly check out this video on Youtube featuring three of the interviewees http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHd_fyFOtWc and decide for yourself :) Destinedfortop (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The only source being argued as a WP:RS (yourstory.in) clearly is not one by Wikipedia standards. This article is being used entirely to promote a work that is still (eagerly) trying to achieve notability. Priyanath talk 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now I don’t know the creator personally but I do know about his work. I was browsing through the Wikipedia page on the article when I saw it was proposed for deletion. I decided to create an account to debate it after reading the discussion. Sure, I maybe new in terms of having an account but I’ve been on Wikipedia long enough to know about its policies. I would therefore appreciate if some of my points were considered.

I have gone through this subject matter in detail, including the website, the pictures with the personalities, excerpts of their interviews and the article on Your Story. I feel that while this subject has not been covered in mainstream media yet, the very concept and the progress made until now may make it notable to the mainstream media in the near future. The reason is that the production itself has potential for notability due to the concept of interviewing “real achievers” instead of self help gurus.

Also, a 23 year old making it independently makes it possess potential for notability in the near future as well. I don’t think the article deserves a deletion, maybe a revision of the background to make it more neutral. The Anubhav Srivastava page can be merged into the Carve Your Destiny page. Editors should be given time to add more verified references to the subject as they appear in the mainstream media. A references tag about requirement for verified third party resources can be added in the meanwhile. If after a couple of months or so, no references from the main stream media have been added, the article can be deleted under the non notability criteria. Right now, I think the article should be given a chance. Remrie (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC) — Remrie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for the love of Dawkins, can we not have an AfD for a self-involved self-promoter which does not have a huge chunk of blabber trying to defend something which clearly fails on the most basic guidelines, then have their SPA friend ride to their rescue and tell us how it "should be given a chance". Fails the GNG for films. Delete it because Spielberg doesn't edit the page on Jaws. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll rest my case. Everything that had to be stated has been stated. I am surprised that some people are quick to accuse others and assume that just because someone happened to know about the work, decided to go against the majority, and created a new account (and admitted it themselves) to state their personal opinions with which I differ, they are still automatically a "friend."

I am not saying any of these opinions from new accounts should hold a lot of weightage but I do expect editors to desist from making accusations. Let's keep this debate limited to facts. If all that would come out of engaging in this debate are these kinds of things, I personally request any of the administrators to kindly delete this page. Destinedfortop (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: are you stating that you are requesting we delete this article? If so, that will speed things up. And what about the article you created to promote yourself? Are you saying that you wish that to be deleted, too? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've not been involved in the creation of the other page although it was made by a person known to me. Admins, kindly delete both the pages as the consensus seems to imply that the pages are not suited for Wikipedia as of now. Destinedfortop (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2009 (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.