Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitu Bhowmick Lange

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. Sock comments and comments about socks aside, there seems on balance to be more weight to deleting at this time. ansh666 07:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitu Bhowmick Lange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Bhowmick Lange Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• This individual is clearly not notable and the page was made to self promote her. Iamricednous (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲_水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sourcing is just not there to say anything of substance about Lange.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator did not supply a reason for deletion. The article seems to be adequately referenced, although some links are dead. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The individual is non-notable this article seems to have been made clearly to promote the individual, which is a breach of Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲_水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable film director with not enough sources to prove notability. This article is a example of pure self-promotion. Inightfox (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲_水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note User:Inightfox has exactly 2 contributions to Wikipedia so far, both being "Delete" votes in AFDs opened by Iamricednous, who themself is likely a sockpuppet. SPI requested. --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to see you prove the false allegations you have made against me. Inightfox (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲_水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or possibly Speedy Keep / Technical Keep. The nomination was by an editor now blocked as a sockpuppet, linked to other sockpuppet accounts which went on a deletion rampage. Unclear if this article was a real target or just a diversion to confuse matters about their real target. Not worth discussing the merits of the article topic. I suggest quick Keep without prejudice. --Doncram (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep editor who nominated is a blocked sock, and the article is sourced. Speedy Keep could be warranted here as well. Tillerh11 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment having "sources" does not prove notability. We can find sources for thousands of individuals who are not notable. This is an overly promotional article on a minor figure in the film industry. Nothing comes even close to being the significant mentions in multiple reliable 3rd-party secondary sources that is needed to pass GNG. I still stand by my vote to delete this overly promotional article. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, it is not a place for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed a large amount of borderline-attack content both here and at Indian Film Festival of Melbourne. I'm also going to make an out-of-process relist on behalf of John Pack Lambert, in lieu of a speedy-keep-plus-renom. I'll remain neutral, the sourcing isn't great but there may be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of continued IP disruption of the article, I've neutrally canvassed this AFD on IRC to aid in getting a consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an attack article (as only includes accusations against Ms Lange, and not her responses). I'm not convinced that the subject is notable for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia either. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Black Kite for removing the BLP violations - I've just struck this part of my vote. I don't think that the subject of the article meets WP:BIO though, particularly noting the presumption in favour of privacy for living people. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep She does appear to be borderline notable. However, as Nick-D says, this is (or was) an attack article. I've removed all the section about people not being paid, as that was an issue for the group she worked for, rather than her (and it was sourced to a blog). I've also removed the whole attack section about the IFFM, as that's not about her either. I've removed the links from the bottom section, as they didn't mention her either, and were therefore BLP issues as well. I'm about to go to the IFFM article and remove the BLP violations there, as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Trivial routine coverage about someone whose films won some laurels.NOTNOW.∯WBG^converse 08:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Several of the sources contain a little bit of commentary on her. She's been noticed. "Weak" because the sources mostly contain interview material which often makes the sources non-independent, and because the award she won, the Jill Robb Award is a non-notable industry award. Preferably find a merge target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCREATIVE. She was a line producer. And then a co-producer in some (non Wikinotable) documentaries. We cannot make a mountain out of a molehill. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 20 July 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.