Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Sanjan


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sunil Sanjan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not quite a contested prod as someone else deleted it (or I'm just guessing, oddly both contributors just registered today with this page being there only thing) Anyway-the director has only one credit and it is a unotable short film. Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about other comments. But I think, its fair enough to keep this page. There is nothing wrong or promotional on the page. Its purely information. There are enough references to support facts mentioned there. So I do not see any point in recommending this for deletion. Kumarsunils (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * page does not violate any rules. So should not be deleted Kumarsunils (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear admin. I have few questions:
 * 1. Don't you get new users every day ? So I can not be one of them ? If you are saying users just registered today ? What is wrong if persons happened to contribute to page same day ? This does not mean this page qualifies for deletion. If some one is not interested in updating anything, this does not mean he or she should keep registered on wikipedia. May be I found interest today to update so registered it. Earlier I didn't. Whats wrong in that ?
 * 2. You said only one credit. Second credit is also there for feature film. Seems you did not check the IMDb and other references. Please do check and do not say that these are fake :) And does it mean if some one has just few credits, he or she can not be called director ? :)
 * 3. Also you wrote. Not so soon ? So now you want to control if when public should know about some one. Very funny dear friend.
 * 4. Bro if you want to delete the page. Go ahead and do it now but please do not put such reasons which does not make sense. Do not wait it, delete it if you think you are right. Go ahead.
 * Appreciate your time. Alishasamuel (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Alishasamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - no evidence of any notability. Maybe too soon but more likely just a vanity article.  Velella  Velella Talk  17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But admin, I agree with them that page should not be deleted. There seems nothing wrong with the page. I can see good number of references already provided. So suggest to keep the page.
 * Good day.. take care.As I said .Page should stay..nothing wrong with it. No violations. Its with in rules and regulations. It has enough references as commented by others as well.
 * Also do not see any vanity admin. Its just two or three line article. And also it looks person is not the creator of page.. How can you say that. ? Bit surprised here dear.. Natashasencute (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Natashasencute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Still insist..page should stay..Lols Notability ? Go and google yourself...lot of references there...And nothing is fake..Its in open domain in public. Whole info about person. All references are provided to support.. Evry person has this phase in life.. no one is born super star or famous..very funny :) Alishasamuel (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * use Wgolf seems jealous of person lols......Could see some arrogance.. he he he ..Just kidding..Alishasamuel (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not delete ..Hey guys....I still could not understand what is wrong with page ? Please keep it. It is not violating any thing. Surekha Rao (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Surekha Rao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Wgolf I think you should nominate his upcoming film Flat 211 as well as it suffers from the same problems as this article. Much worse in the aspect of vanity.
 * General note to the comments above (excluding Velella), you need to provide sources for notability not such suggest that he is because you say so. Taking a combative attitude as the above have done will only reflect negatively on your case especially the personal attack you made above on the nominator. Also, this is wikipedia not a chatroom.
 * Promotional tone, "He is filmmaker by choice and IT professional by necessity."
 * Having a look at the refs: Ref 3 is by the production company owned by Sanjan so not independent or RS, Ref 4, and 7 are IMDb so not RS, Ref 1 (Odagam) looks like a blog like site not likely to be RS (also very promotional tone), Ref 5 (Bollywood Tadka) looks like a gossip site/ blog like so not likely to be RS. Ref 2 is from an epaper of Punjab Kesari but the short piece alone is probably not enough.
 * In summary, this looks like a vanity article for an aspiring filmmaker who hasn't yet attained notability per WP:GNG. No prejudice to recreate the article if the film turns out to actually be notable and mark something in his career but not right now. Cowlibob (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Cowlibob-done, check here Articles for deletion/Flat 211 (Film). Wgolf (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Not notable. -- Orduin  Discuss 00:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keeep Still insist we should keep the page. Additional references have been added. Alishasamuel (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Alishasamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep -- Since new ifno and references are added. Check the page. And page also seems more refined. So request to keep the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashasencute (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)  — Natashasencute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep -- request to keep the page. It is refined and ref are added. No one is making any personal remarks here @ Cowlibob. If any apologies for same. But teaming up and recommending additional actions for other pages is also not good. Sorry if u didnt mean that. But it just looked like that. Thanks for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surekha Rao (talk • contribs) 09:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)  — Surekha Rao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It was a reminder to just discuss the article and not the character of the nominator. The film article is intrinsically linked to this one so both should be discussed at same time. Cowlibob (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Sorry guys no personal comments. But request the nominators to check page, additional info and references are added. So request to keep the page. I feel there is no promotional. If some one has some attributes or qualities, those can not be labeled as promotional. Others should know the real character of same person. Thanks. request to keep the page. Kumarsunils (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please note that you should sign your comments at the end of your statement not at the beginning. I'm also not seeing these additional sources you're talking about. The IndiaTV mention is very brief only 7 seconds hardly enough. Please read WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, vanity page just created for promotional purpuses. The socks above did not made a single valid argument. Cavarrone 06:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the others.  It's a vanity page created for promotional purposes.  The sock puppets above just seal the deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails wP:GNG and is promotional .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Let the film become a historical hit, not only himself, but also his film would be welcomed here. Now quick delete. Educationtemple (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have struck out votes from sockpuppets of (,, and  as confirmed by CheckUser evidence) - see Sockpuppet investigations/Kumarsunils/Archive. Esquivalience  t 02:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:38, 19 March 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.