Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eashvar Karthic

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. For Redirect to be a valid alternative to deletion, there has to be a P&G-based consensus against a standalone article, which wasn't the case here. All the Delete/Redirect views were based on the fact that this director had only one released film, making Redirect an easy option. However, as all Keep views pointed out, the relevant notability guideline - WP:FILMMAKER - says nothing about the number of films, only about their notability, which suggests the easy option is not necessarily the right one. WP:TOOSOON is a useful essay, but it doesn't supercede our notability guidelines. And as some pointed out here, critical acclaim is irrelevant; critical attention matters, whether positive or not, but isn't required. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eashvar Karthic[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Eashvar Karthic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Main issue: the 2nd film of the director never released --> WP:TOOEARLY. This guy only directed one released film, not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative professionals since the film received mixed reviews. The notabliity guidleine states that the director creates a "well-known work or collective body of work". As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. I don't know if a writeup by an assistant professor at American College, Madurai holds any weightage but that info can be added to Penguin, the director's only released film. The deletion was caused by an undo of a redirect to Penguin. Long sources are mainly direct interviews about Penguin, not independent. Acting roles seem minor and not notable.

If anybody who directs one film, gets an article, doesn't this set a bad precedent. The film didn't win a National Award or any award for that matter.

This source [1] talks about six films including Penguin, all of this information pertaining to Penguin should be moved to the film article. This director can be notable after more of his works release. DareshMohan (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you are wondering what the contents of source #7 is, it is here: [2] The story focuses on the pain and struggles suffered by the female lead. A pregnant woman remembers her child who went missing years ago. After the child’s missing, her husband started becoming toxic by saying she was the reason for the loss and separated ways from her. Later after years, a male character was shown who accepted her as she is and started living happily with her. No strong characterization or importance was given to both these male roles. They are just part of the screenplay.

That's just the plot of the film. How is it scholarly analysis? The assistant professor mentioned above [3] (page 100) is the only significant analysis but that is of the film and can be added to Penguin.

Just redirect to Penguin till Zebra (his second film) releases. DareshMohan (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:Actor and WP:Director. AmericanY (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)— AmericanY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: This seems like a bad-faith nomination and I believe you are upset about your friend, User:Monhiroe's autopatrolled rights being removed. You first edited this article on 8 October 2023, what changed your mind between then and 19 June, 2024, when you redirected it? Did it take eight months for you to judge its notability? On 19 June, you skimmed through all the articles I have ever created and made some changes on three of them [4][5][6]. Was it to check which ones you could nominate for deletion but couldn't find any, so you thought Eashvar Karthic was borderline because he had only one film and chose to redirect it? Is this how you get back at an editor who may have upset your friend?
The notice you have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force is not neutral and did not follow WP:APPNOTE. Is your nomination rationale so weak that you are trying to discredit a source simultaneously?
Notability
  • The main issue you have mentioned in you nomination rationale is countered by WP:FILMMAKER#3 where it explicitly mentions significant or well-known work. It need not be a collective body of work.
  • I believe the film receiving mixed reviews has no weightage here as we are not debating for WP:FILMMAKER#4c
  • As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. - Adding to my previous comments above, the film has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which can be verified by checking Penguin (film).
  • Apart from the above, the film has been cited in journals for three completely different reasons: A film that discusses women-centric films, OTT during the COVID-19 pandemic and representation of the subaltern.
  • If you had taken the time to read through Source #7, you would have known that the PDF you have linked is another journal that has cited the original source #7's work. In the PDF you have linked, Penguin (film) was selected as one of the films out of all the other women-centric films that were released in 2020. The scholarly analysis is in the findings and conclusion section of the same PDF. The journal entry's objective is independent of the subject, so it's absurd to ask for an analysis about the film when the objective is different.
  • FWIW, here is another journal that extensively cites the subject's work.
There is significant coverage about the subject and their work. Penguin (film) has also received independent periodical articles, reviews and cited in multiple journals, thereby passing the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jeraxmoira, I completely agree with you on the notability of this director and, like you, I do indeed disagree with DareshMohan's interpretation of the guideline in the present case, but is your very aggressive opening statement absolutely necessary? I am inviting you to kindly strike it. I don't think it's appropriate here, nor helpful. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any bad-faith nomination will be called out. My statement is true and the diffs/timeline make it clear, so it will not be struck out. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Penguin (film), his sole directorial credit. The sources in the article are based on the film and doesn't extensively describes/mention/discuss about his work. --Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article for Karthic's only released film, "Penguin." He's only directed one film. It got mixed reviews and needs more coverage. So, he still needs to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. We must redirect the page to keep the relevant information about his directorial role in the film. This placement is better until he releases more work and meets notability standards.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AstridMitch, could you please explain your rationale on how the article fails to meet WP:FILMMAKER#3, to be precise, how it fails "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"?
    You have also mentioned the it needs for more coverage, but the film Penguin (film) has received more than five full length reviews and has been cited in over four journals. What, in your opinion, is sufficient coverage if not this? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eashvar_Karthic&oldid=1234080047"