Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhwani Gautam


 * 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 no consensus. No real agreement over whether the sources listed help this person meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Dhwani Gautam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Against my better judgement but at the insistence of that small part of me that insists that if there is a shot - even a long one- that an article can stay here gamble on it, I am listing this here for feedback on whether or not there is enough information in the article to justify keeping it. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete : The director has done only one movie, which is notable, but there are not enough sources to establish the notability of the person himself. Coderzombie (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

He has done Romance Complicated, Tu To Gayo 2016  His ongoing project includes Patel Vs. Patrick   This is his third Gujarati Commercial Film as a filmmaker. Paperpopscissors (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If the filmmaker in question isn't notable himself, how was I able to successfully link him to other pages on wikipedia using the Link Tool where he has been mentioned and the edit history is a proof of the interlinking.Paperpopscissors (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have already mentioned, notability of a film is not same as notability of the film maker. "able to successfully link him to other pages" is not a measure of notability either. Coderzombie (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Self-published sources,like Facebook, are not reliable sources for notability. Coderzombie (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

There is enough news coverage of Dhwani Gautam himself so why can't his presence be notable. His films Romance Complicated and Tuu To Gayo have catalysed the growth of the industry and driven the audiences to the theatres where no one even bothered a second look at earlier Gujarati Films. That is a notable contribution to the Film Industry.

The wikipedia page of Abhishek Jain exists. Now he too has two films as a filmmaker to his credit and a tie up with a Bollywood Production house. Now if he as a personality is worthy enough to stay on Wikipedia why not Dhwani Gautam? Their outlook on filmmaking varies but they are more or less on the same trajectory at the same time in the same industry.

"Self-published sources,like Facebook, are not reliable sources for notability" I agree that self published sourves are not reliable sources for notability; however, news coverage in one of the country's highest circulating newspaper, The Times Of India or it's various editions is, which have already been cited wherever necessary. And this coverage includes bits about the filmmaker as well as his films. If he didn't have any news value or if his personality was not notable, why would he or any of his works be covered in the paper? Paperpopscissors (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * KEEP: As far as notability of subject is concerned, I'm inclined to believe he is notable per WP:GNG after seeing these sources. There was another issue, WP:NPOV, that I fixed reducing article to one-sentence; anyone interested can to re-write it using available sources. Anup   [Talk]  02:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject not notable and fails GNG. Article appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * hmm, what part of article does read "promotional" to you? Dhwani Gautam (born 22 September 1985) is a filmmaker, director and writer who predominantly works in the Gujarati Film Industry and Bollywood, this one? Or Filmography section? Anup   [Talk]  05:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Anup. Numerous in-depth sources from news outlets such as The Times of India would mean that the subject meets the WP:GNG. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The argument for keeping seems to be that other film-makers who have some sort of connection with him are notable. That doesn't mean much. No reliable sources subtantially about him.  DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I never used that argument. My !keep is based on our GNG and DIRECTOR policy. Subject has apparently received significant coverage in multiple RSes. I'm listing here some for anyone interested may want to talk a look at:




 * These are only some listed from search results page-1. Except one all are English-language newspapers. IMO this kind of coverage in national media for a person working in regional cinema suggests nothing but notability for him. I recognize COI issue which has become a 'new-normal' thing for India-related topics. We can deal with that by applying appropriate protection level.


 * It should also be noted that, there are only 2 English language newspapers in top-10 largest by circulation in India (coverage from remaining 8 being in regional languages are hard to found online. If there's something left out, and one still needs more sources, it is the case where they should assume WP:NEXIST.) It is highly disturbing that notability of India-related topics are assumed from coverage in English-language sources only. Anup   [Talk]  10:20, 11 October 2016 (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.