Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moni Bhattacharjee


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Moni Bhattacharjee

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No significant coverage in reliable sources. One of his films, Mujhe Jeene Do, is notable, he himself is not. Since the film article does not contain significant information on Bhattacharjee (none with reliable sources, that is), a redirect would not be helpful. Huon (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I do respect your comments regarding Moni Bhattacharjee however in bulk reviewing you didn't check it properly in Moni Bhattacharjee article has citations are satisfying the secondary sources policy in Wikipedia, look you are agreed on the point that his one movie is very notable and its logical thing that if his movies are notable so does he, its not only one movie he has more than 6 biggest movies as he is director of nineties and he was very well known and notable personality of his time as he was in nineties therefore its hard to find information on internet however I am working on it as soon as I find I will upload it therefore deleting of article is not a good solution therefore it ought to improve rather deleting. --Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CREATIVE in that his works have notability through commentary and review. For example, his work Mujhe Jeene Do has a quite in-depth review and commentary in The Hindu, and his works have analysis and comentary in multiple books. And beyond WP:CREATIVE, he meets WP:ANYBIO for his 1964 Palme d'Or nomination at Cannes Film Festival. We have enough available to show notability, even if it was 40+ years ago. Notability is not temporary and we do not expect ongoing modern coverage for a respected filmmaker whose last production was in 1968.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability sure isn't temporary, but it isn't inherited either. My understanding was that winning an award counted as "winning significant critical attention" per WP:CREATIVE while a nomination did not. But even if he scraped by WP:CREATIVE on that account, he still fails the general notability guideline, and I don't see how we have enough secondary sources about him to write anything beyond a stub. For example, I cannot even tell whether he's still alive or when he was born. Since we don't expect new coverage, this won't get better. Huon (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The the essence of WP:NTEMP is that Wikipedia accepts that a person who was notable in India 40 to 50 years before the internet does not need ongoing modern coverage. That prior notability is found in that he and his works are spoken of in a more-than-trivial manner in books (pinging the GNG) as the coverage is NOT trivial and his accomplishments have made it into the enduring historical record. Further, we cannot dismiss that in his easily meeting WP:CREATIVE (not just "scraping by") in that his works also have coverage exceeding the GNG. But what is also cogent is that the GNG is not the sole determinant of notability... just the easiest to argue. And please note the essay WP:INHERITED deals more with familial relationships and not creative endeavours. If I were to argue that WP:ANYBIO could be ignored because it encourages notability-by-association with an award, I would be laughed off the project.  What we have here is a reasonable preumption, supported by archived coverage of his works in newspapers and of himself & works in books (even if all 50-year-old India newspapers are not available online), is verifiability that the made made his mark and received recognition for his creative efforts. It does not matter if the stub does not show if he is dead or simply retired. It does not mater that the stub does not share personal information about the man. THOSE facts are not the assertions of notability.  And stubs are always welcome... even if they may never be more than a stub.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed that he was notable 40 years ago. Which books speak of him? The article does not mention any. Bhattacharjee does not fulfil the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO because for all I can tell he neither won any awards nor was he nominated multiple times. Whether his work is "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is at best debatable when all we have are two decades-old film reviews. If that were to count, any director of every film which was reviewed would become notable, which is absurd. Could you please elaborate what books write about him and how he satisfies WP:ANYBIO? If you know sources not currently mentioned in the article, please add them. Huon (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources were offered above and they need not BE in the article to show notability.... and as for Indian-language sources for a filmmaker whose works predated the internet by nearly half a century, I'll await input from editors more able than you or me to offer input on hardcopy sources for pre-internet Indian film notables. And even though we do have enough sources now, WP:NTEMP explains that sources do not have to remain forever available. Bhattacharjee and his works receiving more-than-trivial analysis and commentary even in existing media and books is enough evidence of a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" for me. And available sources aside, is it your opinion, that an Indian filmmaker being nominated for a Palme d'Or at Cannes Film Festival in 1964 would never have caught the attention of media in 1964 India?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am 50/50 on this one right now but have asked for input from the India Project. Indian cinema is huge and a lot of people involved in it are not notable even though the films to which they are connected may be. On the other hand, I have a gut feeling that there are unplumbed depths here, in part precisely because the subject area is so big and there is a tendency of modern contributors to this sphere of India-related articles to concentrate on the stars of today rather than of yesteryear. Add to that the very significant issue of systemic bias in this area, I think that we should at least keep things in proportion until some people with more chance of doing some sourcing actually do take a look. If that means extending the usual AfD period by an additional few days then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reason of Systemic Bias. A director with a classic success and a Cannes entry is notable enough in Indian cinema. He has had such a hit, people will want to read about him. If he had neither the hit nor the Cannes nomination, one would unhesitatingly hurry to delete the article. Western standards of notability should not be applied to delete articles on Indian topics which are just about notable. AshLin (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Director of at least three notable movies (Mujhe Jeene Do, Jaal, Baazi), and assistant director of one of the most memorable movies of Hindi Film Industry (Do Bigha Zameen). --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, if needed, I'll find sources myself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is needed. This is exactly the problem: from the perspective of someone in Europe, I can't find sources for substantiate notability but (as I said above) I have a gut feeling that they exist and this is a systemic bias issue. Go do that thing ;) Sitush (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (})
 * (})


 * Hindi language:
 * 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.