Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paritosh Uttam

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 soft delete. If someone wants to merge this material into another article, I will userfy upon request. MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paritosh Uttam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR.One of his book(s) was adapted into a film which garnered covg. in reliable sources but had only trivial mentions about the author/book.Seems to have featured in 1/2 promo-interviews, though.All in all, too soon. Winged Blades^Godric 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we should focus on strengthening this article and on how to keep it here. I am on it though. Dial911 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE reveals quite a few articles on the author, just because the article is not notable doesn't mean the subject isn't, as per WP:JNN. Egaoblai (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Egaoblai:--I would highly appreciate your's reading the nomination statement prior to casting your !vote.Please provide the articles in reliable sources that are not interviews (In Indian media circles, sans a few almost all are paid-self-promo-tools and are hardly independent) and that manages to provide significant non-trivial coverage about the subject.Winged Blades^Godric 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help the article in surviving this AfD?This and this Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1st reference is OK.

As to the 2nd, I have strong doubts about the editorial independence of these magazines, which spans up every other day, esp. when coupled with their regular exploitation as promotional tools.So, that doesn't lend much to his notability. Winged Blades^Godric 04:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. Meanwhile, I will cite this OK reference to the article. Dial911 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but interviews are indicators of notability, according to WP:Interview :"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Now you say that "in Indian media circles" these are paid for. This is approaching systemic bias as we cannot simply discount and entire country based on this line. Reliable sources does not blanket ban certain sources from entire countries, which is what you seem to be implying here. If you believe that interviews in this article are paid for, then it is up for you to show that. otherwise, they remain indicators of notability.Egaoblai (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many good sources in the article.Among those that are present, Between the lines is not a RS.I would be amused if you thought it to be! Also, you cannot rely on the biographical profile of authors at the website of their own publishing houses.And, neither do I know, that having one's book published by a reputed publishing house lends automatic notability.

Doing a typical GSearch leads me to this, this and this.The first two is acutely non-reliable.The latter (third) is interesting--the source is generally highly reliable but the sub-genre of interviews aren't.See the ending:--Read more of his stories on paritoshuttam.com--linked to his own webiste.Or simply become a fan of Pariotsh Uttam and interact with the young author here!--which's linked to his Rediff profile}} Also, they even carried an excerpt of Uttam's story.

Overall, there is sparse media covg. located about here (the source provided just before which is good and present at the article), here (which's again the review of the film based on his book) and this fits a typical WP:BLP1E.

I, for one searched the TOI and The Telegraph archives but failed to retrieve anything significant.Winged Blades^Godric 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: Fails NAUTHOR as there is just not enough reliable sources to justify a stand-alone BLP article. Likely TOOSOON because Artist (film) appears notable. I would agree to a merge to that article or to Dreams in Prussian Blue if relavent sources were also incorporated into it which is currently pooly sourced. The success of one book turned movie does not give automatic notability as it is not inherited. Otr500 (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2018 (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.