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 but leaning slightly towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deepankar De[edit]

Deepankar De (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. No sources. Searches yield nothing. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. WP:BIO says that actors "with significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" are notable. The New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle sources which I put in the article confirms that that applies here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. It's a stretch to argue the man himself is notable merely by confirming that movies he's been in have reviews in newspapers. Sourcing is the basis for the establishment of notability and the films themselves appear to be barely notable based on available sources and the actor even less so. In fact, the sources you added shouldn't even be on this article. They say nothing about the man himself and are more appropriate for the articles on the movies. Ultimately, notability is a matter degree (which WP:BIO acknowledges) and in this case it hasn't been established satisfactorily. Doctorfluffy (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The quotation I gave above comes directly from WP:BIO, so simply asserting that notability is not inherited doesn't refute the fact that actors with significant roles in notable films are themselves considered notable. The sources I gave confirm that the subject had significant roles in these films. As for the films themselves being barely notable, did you take the time to follow the wikilinks in the article? If so you will have seen that Agantuk won the best film award at the National Film Awards in 1992, which is pretty much like getting an Oscar for best film, except that it is awarded in a country with a larger film industry than the country which hosts the Oscars. Also you will have noted that the director of these films, Satyajit Ray won an Academy Honorary Award (lifetime achievement award) at the Oscars in 1992, which hardly makes his films "barely notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite familiar with WP:BIO and was aware that you directly quoted it in your first comment. I don't think you really understood my point. That is, notability policy is flexible. Merely meeting one set of criteria does not automatically ensure that a subject is worthy of inclusion. One must exercise discretion and review each case separately. Virtually all policies and guidelines acknowledge this. In fact, WP:BIO states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I believe this is one of the latter circumstances. This actor has no mention in any reliable secondary sources. As far as I can tell he has been in only the two movies listed in the article which indicates his career was rather limited. Perhaps he was in a notable film or two, but ultimately no one seems to have taken any notice of him whatsoever. All of your comments above are about films he was in and, two degrees separated from the subject of this AFD, the awards those films won and the others involved in their production. It appears that the roles themselves are what's notable here and the fact he was the person who played the roles is incidental. I understand your argument and that you are likely to point out again that you quoted WP:BIO directly, but ultimately I feel this man is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
More