Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Souman Bose (2nd nomination)

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. czar 02:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Souman Bose

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Checking the 2 pages of Google News hits for this subject, I find nothing of substance about the subject. All passing mentions. I even searched Google News using the Indic script of the subject's name found in the article (সৌমন বোস) and got zero hits. This is potentially the best reference in the article, but it doesn't tell us anything about Bose, and I'm not sure ebela.in is even considered a reliable source.

The article has been around for five years, largely maintained by editor Asiljohn, who has virtually no editing interests beyond Souman Bose. The article also contains inappropriately drooling tone found in the article: unsubstantiated claims of critical and audience acclaim, rave reviews, etc. This is all consistent with promotional/vanity article creation and maintenance, and likely COI. This was the edit that got me looking deeper, (as I was investigating mxplayer.in spam) and you can see it lavishes more unfounded praise on the subject, and when I challenged the content and flagged the article for cleanup, Asiljohn sprung into action, restored the content, deleted the template and called me a sockpuppet. Twice. Lol. The article was previously nominated for deletion, with the result being deletion. Asiljohn recreated the article a few months after it was pulled.

Anyhow, it's been a good run, but it's time to pull the plug on this non-notable vanity article subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. Cinematographers and film producers tend to be run of the mill. There's too little coverage online to make a decent bio. This was deleted five years ago. Please ping me if you find more coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ he fails notability as a cinematographer but I'm not so sure as an actor. He receives more than passing mentions in several articles although their status as reliable sources is unclear. This might be a question again of WP:TOOSOON as he seems to have gotten more attention in the last two or three years. Curiocurio (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing the "more than passing mentions" of which you speak, that also satisfy the other requirements of the GNG, reliability and independence. Here are my opinions on the various sources:

Extended content

This is a blog, so it doesn't count, per WP:UGC.
This is a slideshow.
This is a non-independent press release advertising the network's own show.
This is ebela.in. Not sure if it would be considered reliable, but this speaks more about one of Bose's films.
This is a press release.
This is a very brief interview, i.e. not independent.
This is a passing mention. "...Subholina Sen, who plays a Christian girl, Ana Marlo, in Souman Bose’s film Kash (Puff)."
This is a blog, so it doesn't count.
This is a blog.
~~This doesn't mention Bose.~~ I was incorrect, this does does mention him, and does talk very briefly about the subject's popularity. But does it qualify as in-depth?
This is an interview of a film director, who says, "Souman Bose plays Souvik". Passing mention. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a film review. The total mention of Bose: "Souman Bose as Sayantika’s friend and colleague pulls it off well."
This is a blog.
I've never heard of this outlet, and have a good deal of familiarity with Indian entertainment articles. The totality of their independent coverage is (Google translated) "Souman is a newcomer to the world of acting However, if you watch his performance, you will not feel a drop, this is the first time he has come in front of the camera"
This is ebela.in again. Totality: "Souman Bose's sharp acting and Payal Dev's spontaneous simplicity keep the viewer's eyes and mind on the screen, not moving."
This is a streaming site. Does not provide any information about Bose.
This is ebela.in again. It looks like a press release to me. Contains large interview chunks from Bose and doesn't feel independent.
This is a passing mention. "Souman Bose and Poulomi Das will be seen in pivotal roles."
This feels like an interview-slash-press-release.

Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Made a change to above, I struck through an incorrect statement that a source didn't mention Bose. I did a page search for "Bose", but the Google Translator had converted his name to Basu. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Cyphoidbomb's thorough analysis above. Therefore, delete. Curiocurio (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what @cyphoidbomb meant by "This doesn't mention Bose" when the article revolves around Bose. Also it mentions his native name সৌমন , which @cyphoidbomb was quick to find out while bashing this article in the very first place stating that he tried to search for sources citing the subject's name but could hardly find any "reliable source". If Indian Express isn't a reliable source, then I am not sure what is. On another full pledged article about Bose's journey from being an experimental underground filmmaker to being able to bring his experimental films into the mainstream has been called off as a mere "interview".This feels like an interview These should be looked at from a more objective point of view instead, in my humble opinion.Deletion of this article would not cause me any harm. Neither am I attached to it because I put my time into creating and updating it alongside some very fine fellow users. But deleting this article would simply mean less people would get to be aware of people like Bose who despite having a respectable body of work and an inspiring journey stay away from the limelight.Also,dear @cyphoidbomb , my intention to post this on the subject's article deletion discussion page isn't to "sway" or challenge anybody as you asked me to do on the talk page. I simply am trying to see this beyond false sense pride or any futile ownership. Thank You. Regards, Asiljohn —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've appended the list to acknowledge my error. The "This doesn't mention Bose" statement was the result of doing a CTRL-F search for "Bose", which was not successful, as Google Translate had converted his name to "Basu". I still don't consider the text about him to be in-depth, but perhaps others might.
In this version of the article, the name present in the infobox is সৌমন বোস. When doing a Google News search for this string, there were no hits. Now I find one search result, with a link that I've addressed in the collapsed box above. So if you have an issue with my ability to search, take it up with whomever added that name to the infobox.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR, mainly he has not been in or involved with any major movies or TV shows/series. If he is not in Indian Wiki, someone should add him there, but as a worldwide actorehis insignificant. Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb বোস is commonly referred to as "Basu" as well, as a mark of respect or a formal way of addressing the surname Bose in Bengali; Bose's native language. @Expertwikiguy Not doing an English show, doesn't mean that Bose hasn't been part of 'major shows' or films.He has done shows for reputed platforms like Amazon, Zee and such which have been critically acclaimed and popular as well. I'm not sure if this is counted as a 'blog' or a proper source, but on the list of 31 most popular shows from around the world on MX Player, it mentions one of Bose's shows as well. [1] There are numerous other examples as well but I am not getting into that, lest I am accused of "drooling" about the subject. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which don't deserve to even have a Wikipedia page, but still continue to thrive and misguide it's readers using poorly cited vanity sources. Such as this one Tridha Choudhury It would be nice, if you turned your attention to these articles instead. Also, if Bose's article needs to be deleted, then it should be deleted soon, instead of marking it with a deletion template for so long. If not,then the template should be removed soon enough. Regards,Asiljohn —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be nice, if you turned your attention to these articles instead." The existence of problems elsewhere at Wikipedia does not mean that we stop scrutinising one article to address those other issues. If we did, nothing would ever get done, since there are always problems somewhere else. If that Choudhury article is so troubling to you, nobody's preventing you from fixing it. You've made no contributions outside of the scope of Souman Bose, yet you're telling people where they should be focussing their attention? C'mon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely my point.What is bothering me is hoax articles exist and nothing is being done about them. But an article that has much reason to exist is undergoing so much of scrutiny.I am merely pointing at the irony of it all.Also, I have edited or suggested changes to other articles as well & will intend to create or add justifiable info to more articles in the recent future, hopefully. But my intent isn't to "pull the plug" on existing articles. I intend to create novel articles on subjects that deserve a place on Wikipedia. Hope,I have been able to elucidate better.Cheers. Also, I would like to hear from you and the others, why is the deletion template on Bose's article not been reconsidered after I have provided more than ample sources to counter the prior apprehensions regarding the existence of the subject and also clearly pointed out how "This article doesn't mention Bose" was such an inapt allegation. Despite all this, if the article needs to be deleted, then it should happen immediately. Asiljohn —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"That is precisely my point." No, my response was the exact opposite of your point: This isn't the place to discuss other problematic articles, nor is the existence of problematic articles a legitimate counter-argument to justify this article to exist. As for the rest of your comment, the community does quite a deal to identify and remove hoax articles, so your oversimplified complaint that nothing is being done about hoax articles is totally unfounded and ignorant. As for the deletion nomination template, it always remains atop the article until a deletion discussion resolves one way or another, and that usually lasts 7 or more days, depending on participation. Lastly, please sign your posts with four tildes like ~~~~ This will append a signature and time stamp like this → Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! It seems like a futile argument. No one was 'oversimplifying' anything. An example of a hoax article was to merely state that there are articles aplenty that are not being dealt with & it seems like a deletion template was added to this article just because you were called a sockpuppet and your previous template was removed.I thought that miscommunication was sorted on the talk page. But clearly not. I am well aware of the fact that once a deletion template is added to an article, it is usually deleted within 7 days and it's been well over 7 days but no conclusion has been reached. That is what was implied. Also, I understand the article may also be relisted. Nevertheless, I don't think this debate is going anywhere. Whatever I could contribute to prove the 'worthiness' of this article, I already have. Anyone seeing this from a neutral point of view would concur/agree. I am done here because I think it is now becoming counter productive to debate about the existence of this article as you are refusing to accept or understand things that are quite self explanatory. Therefore, I rest my case. May you & the other experienced users handle the fate of this article and decide if it deserves to exist or not. ThanksAsiljohn (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't meet the usual requirements for the field. We probably have tens of thousands of equally weak older articles in this area that need to be treated similarly. The least wecan do is not add more of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 1 November 2020 (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.