Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist)


 * 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Rajdweep (playwright and lyricist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I failed to find any evidence to support his contribution in any film listed in the article except Bahniman where he co-wrote the lyrics, current references are either press release, self-published, or blogs. The article been deleted multiple times under different titles Rajdweep and Rajdweep (writer). PROD removed by the author without explanation. GSS (talk |c|em ) 10:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 10:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 10:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. While there's enough substance here that an article would be fine if it were sourced properly, the sources present here are almost all primary sources and blogs rather than real reliable source coverage in real media — but the notability claims (which boil down to "he and his work exist", rather than a strong claim like "won a major music award") are not strong enough to earn him a presumption of notability on less valid sourcing than it would take to pass WP:GNG. In addition the creator again tried to skirt around the salt, just as they did with Prem Khan, by creating the article at an alternate title and then admin-shopping to get the page moved overtop the salted title — the only reason this isn't speediable is because the prior deletions were by speedy rather than AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep : Deep articles from The Assam Tribune, The Telegraph (Calcutta) seen. But some clean up needed BetterSmile:D 04:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - It is kind of upsetting to see a page created to avoid a salt as this one is. As far as notability, there are some references, but not enough for what I feel establishes notability of the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment An article from The Northeast Today added. Along with The Assam Tribune, The Telegraph (Calcutta) articles makes it pass WP:GNG. All the 3 are reputed news papers from North East BetterSmile:D 06:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
 * All three sources are passing mentions none talk about the subject independently and in details to support WP:GNG or WP:BIO. GSS (talk |c|em ) 07:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment How can you say that ? Article 1 This article only talks about the person throughout the article. Please dont be blind towards the evidence BetterSmile:D 07:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I see this source as a piece of advertisement and/or paid publicity which reads more like an interview and everyone know how print media works especially Indian media who happily act as PR agents for anyone who claims to be a star and write anything for some bucks. We need better third party sources to establish notability. GSS (talk |c|em ) 09:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment You may think the way you like. But when commenting in wiki as an editor be little more responsible as you just said, all similar news articles are paid, then there is no need for such reference articles in wiki. Please talk sense BetterSmile:D 09:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see the Assam Tribune as a paid piece. If it were, there should be a disclosure. To claim such, we would need to have something other than its promotional tone to prove it. However, it would not be reliable as he is currently a journalist for that organization. While not really a self-published piece, I look at it like an organization who publishes content about its own members or employees. There really isn't an editorial process when they write about their own and therefore I don't consider the piece reliable.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * '''FIY as per the article, the person is working in Assamese daily Asamiya Khabar, not in Assam Tribune. Please note BetterSmile:D 01:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, Has not done any significant or notable work.  FITINDIA   09:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment More content and reference added towards notability BetterSmile:D 12:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
 * All sources are nothing more than passing mention except #1 which reads like an advertisement and/or interview as I said above. Source 7, 8, 9 and 10 are not reliable 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are talking about the same event which qualify as WP:OVERKILL none provide more than a passing mention, which is insufficient to satisfy the inclusion notability. GSS (talk |c|em ) 15:10, 11 July 2017 (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.