Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Vathsan


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Jack Vathsan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence for notability--music director of one film is not enough unless the individual receives a major award for it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as I see no better improvement here. Pinging speedy taggers and .  SwisterTwister   talk  19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Linked references are passing mentions at best. I could find nothing after searching on 'Jack Vathsan' as well as alternate spellings and variations of his given name. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO J bh  Talk  19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: No any reliable source or sources that establish the notability, and per music-bio to have the page on the Wikipedia.Justice007 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and, There are so many profiles with just one movies in Wikipedia.  has removed the speedy deletion in the history. and now he has put it for deletion. There is no consistency.  Wanted more articles and I have provided. Now   wants it to be deleted. This person has just signed 2 agreements and this page would be created again with Citation. I read the Notability section and I think this article can stay because of the Hindu article. I have been asking this question again and again. What should I do to keep this article? Because, for the next projects I dont want to keep creating articles. Statisticallyhigh (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I discussed this very issue with you on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jbhunley#Jack_Vathsan my talk page] when you asked about fixing up the article. There are just not enough sources to show notability. You have linked an article that mentions him and has a brief non-biographical quote. The other sources are a picture, his Facebook page and a very short article about the movie. This is not significant coverage - not even close. Without several paragraphs of coverage about him there is no chance of passing the notability criteria. If you can find that I will reconsider my !vote. If he gets significant coverage later then create the article then, if it is recreated without that coverage it will be speedy deleted per WP:CSD g4 Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion  (Assuming this AfD results in deletion.)  J bh  Talk  13:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Originally I tagged it for speedy deletion when there were no sources, but after a reliable one was added I removed the speedy as I thought this had established a credible claim of significance. Just thought I should clarify this. Everymorning (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Everymorning Here is the thing. Earlier nobody has managed this page properly.The Hindu article is a proper citation if i have read the notable section correctly.But if I understand Wikipedia, it is an open source online encyclopedia; and not only for celebrities who have won awards and have millions of fans. This will be against the founder's vision. Vachathi incident has shook the country (India) and a movie on such an incident should be accessible to common people. He has just signed an agreement for his next album. I'll update it once it is out on a reliable site. I'll suggest you guys to remove the deletion tag and keep this page on your watchlist. It was an article which was fine. I just asked help from for the other template issues and it has led to this. Please check this article now, I have removed the one's without Citation.

Statisticallyhigh (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Asking for help did not lead to the AfD or only insomuch as any edits to the article would have brought it up on others' watch lists or on WP:Recent changes. Another editor nominated the article because they saw it did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It is possible they saw all of the find sources I placed on the talk page and also saw there was no WP:RS material for the article. I do not know and it does not matter. At this point complaining about 'the founders vision' and making unsupported claims of 'upcoming projects' will not affect the outcome of this AfD. If you want to save the article do what I have said repeatedly. Go find some reliable sources that talk about this person The Hindu article is not sufficient. You need several articles in good newspapers, together having several paragraphs of information talking about the subject. There is no 'updating once it comes out on a reliable site'. The material must exist in reliable sources before an article may exist. J bh  Talk  21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Please read the below points and tell where it mentions about how notable a person has to be? Notability

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]

Statisticallyhigh (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article do not meet the coverage requirement. That is why the article was nominated and why other editors are voting delete. Long quotes will not change that. If you wish to discuss notability criteria the place to do that is Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). J bh  Talk  21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So what do you suggest we do now? unfortunately this is all we have. Statisticallyhigh (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article will likely be deleted as a result of this discussion. If you can come up with 3 or 4 WP:RS sources that discuss him in detail - not just a quote or a passing mention but a couple of paragraphs - then you can recreate the article using those sources. If the article is recreated without new sources it will end up getting speedily deleted per WP:G4. If their are not several sources and they do not discuss him in detail chances are the article will be brought back to WP:AFD. I would suggest you make a draft article at User:Statisticallyhigh/Jack Vathsan or Draft:Jack Vathsan and collect sources there. I will be glad to help you review the draft/sourcing once you have collected the material.  J bh  Talk  21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool Thanks for your time, I have saved the draft. But, I still vote to keep. Just before you or anyone deletes, This is the mention on Hindu:-


 * Music director Jackson: I have used melody to capture the poignant mood of the film. One of the songs is dedicated to the Vachaathi incident — all the songs take the film forward without hindering the pace. The background music is the backbone of the film.


 * Music highlights


 * It is heartening to note that the new music director Jackson has scored all the six songs based on Carnatic ragas. ‘Manidhargale' in Harikambodhi has been rendered well by Prabhakar. ‘Chirumalligai, also in the same raga, sung by Surmugi and Devi, is pleasant. ‘Thodu Thodu Mella,' in Chalanattai, is a romantic number by Hemambika and Krishnamurthy. The lyrics of ‘Machakanni' in Suddha Dhanyasi seem to suggest that the song is sung before the wedding of the lead pair — it is sung by Sampkeerthan. ‘Uyirasai' in Gambhira Nattai is sung by Senthildas — it conveys why the lovers split. The song focussing on the gruesome incident is in raga Panthuvarali with the background music in Poorna Panjamam — it is sung by Sampkeerthan with feeling.


 * Statisticallyhigh (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will keep the draft on my watch list. For reference the material you quote consists of a 'mere quote' and a 'passing mention' and is not at all useful for establishing notability. It might be useful for an article about the movie or a review of the sound track though. Cheers. J bh  Talk  21:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks. Statisticallyhigh (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - there are zero reliable sources as of now. I'd also suggest a redirect to the only film released. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2015 (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.