Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyam Goel

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. Nomination withdrawn. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Goel

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

Mentions that I see about this writer are simply that, brief mentions. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a writer it falls under WP:AUTHOR (aka creative) which says a work they played a part in co-creating is reviewed in multiple reliable sources. He has written the story or screenplay for around 20 films[1] and those films have been reviewed. Some examples where he is directly mentioned in the review: [2][3][4][5][6][7] - though any film review will add to this list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've seen most of those and now read all of them. They are all brief - no more than a sentence, some just mentioning that he is an author or co-author. None of them actually discuss him. I don't see them as meeting the criteria "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." which I assume is what you are referring to. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews of the movies are just like book reviews, they count as significant coverage of the author's work which is what WP:CREATIVE is about for all creative professions. The people who dream up the story and write the script have a significant creative role in a movie. We have over 400 Indian screenplay authors on Wikipedia (Category:Indian screenwriters). While it would be nice to have in depth biographical piece about this person it is not required, the bar for inclusion is not that high since he only needs reviews of his works (in multiple reliable sources) to pass CREATIVE. The links I provided above were just some that mentioned his name directly but even that is not required, just reviews of his works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't like book reviews - a film is a joint creative process involving a large number of people, a book is normally a one or maybe two person effort. Many books don't get reviews, most films do. Every BLP in other fields where I've seen AfDs has failed if there hasn't been some in depth discussion of the person. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most major films are reviewed this is true, and creative applies to multiple people in each film who play a significant role.. director, lead actors etc.. so we end up with a lot of film related articles. But, for every film produced in the world there are probably 100+ books, so there are probably more book articles on Wikipedia than film in aggregate. Previous AfD failures are probably because participants are not familiar or comfortable with how CREATIVE works and tend to stick with the generic GNG/BASIC and not venture into the special notability guidelines. Each case is unique of course, if this person only had a few films I would have probably voted Delete but this is a late career writer with dozens of accomplishments. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:CREATIVE for the body and coverage of his notable works. Sources do speak about this screenwriter's works, (IE: "the trump card is its script (Shyam K. Goel, Shiraz Ahmed) that keeps you on tenterhooks till the very end" and "script (Shyam K. Goel) has several loopholes, with several questions left unanswered." It may be a weak stub now, but it serves the project that we allow it to remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. To Dougweller with respects, we do not expect sources praising his works to be primarily about the man himself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, this seems very different to my experience where discussion of the person himself has been required. Looks like it is easier for a script writer to have an article than, say, a Yale professor. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, Doug. I understand your point, but if that Yale professor's works had wide acclaim, he might qualify under CREATIVE as well. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion/sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination GreenCardamon has convinced me, but I will note that at the moment it has virtually no content showing notability, no sources, etc. What I did see in mentions was both praise and criticism, both belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2013 (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.