- 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Sulagna Chatterjee
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sulagna Chatterjee ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. FII, Makers, Women'sRepublic etc are not reliable. Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews. There is not a single non-interview source meeting WP:SIGCOV. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Wrote prominent part of a major series with global distribution, plenty of decent-quality sources. Not sure why this was nominated. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 22:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Starred?
Decent quality sources
like? TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC) - The ET article is brand-promotion/advertisement. See Brand equity and WP:TOI. Ditto for the collaboration between Yahoo and Makers. Women's Republic has no editorial policy or mention of who's who, failing WP:NEWSORG. Filmibeat is typical entertainment promo-spam and community does not accept use in BLPs; see these two RSN threads: 1, 2. FII is a glorified community-blog.
- This article shall be redirected to Feels Like Ishq. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that you don't decide what "shall" happen here. A consensus of editors does, and you seem to be making a habit of mischaracterising sources to try to achieve your desired result. The Wikipedia article you cited is completely unrelated to whatever point you thought you were making. The marketing (industry, not advertising) section of the India Times is not an "advertisement". The Yahoo articles are perfectly valid content, and you've completely mischaracterised the organisation involved in the "collaboration". Feminism in India which seems to be a well-established digital media website on par with others we use all the time, and labelling it a "glorified community-blog" just seems to be a baseless attempt to dismiss it. It's also plainly evident that there is more material in WP:RS that is easily available for further expansion, including regarding aspects of her career not even mentioned here. There is some sort of weird attempt here to hold this woman to a higher standard than would generally be the case for any other screenwriter of a major Netflix series, and I can only speculate given the subject matter of said series. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 07:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- FII is going to WP:RSN. As is the ET article. In case you have missed, it is advised in policy that particular sources are provided than generic search results. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- For the nth time, she wrote the screenplay of a part. segment which occupied a sixth of a Netflix series. She did NOT star in it. Maybe, I can get you a dictionary? TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:TrangaBellam's endeavour to get FII declared as RS has been contested on the noticeboard. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) ( talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Starred?
Speedy keep, bad AfD. This is a discussion about the validity of sources, but no discussion has occurred on the article's talk page, which would be the correct first step prior to nomination for deletion. A discussion has started regarding this on the reliable sources noticeboard, so two parallel discussions are occurring which are essentially the same. This would not prevent for any future deletion discussion resulting from a consensus that the sources were not reliable. Boynamedsue ( talk) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews
.Also, WP:ARTIST:for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series.
TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any policy that states interviews do not constitute significant coverage, might be wrong though.
Boynamedsue (
talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Boynamedsue, check out this comment. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe let Tayi Arajakate know you are including their comment here, TrangaBellam? Boynamedsue, when WP:SECONDARY commentary/coverage is also available, an interview can support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any policy that states interviews do not constitute significant coverage, might be wrong though.
Boynamedsue (
talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given there isn't going to be a speedy keep, my view is keep, the sources questioned by TrangaBellam seem valid and provide enough coverage to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per
WP:BASIC, e.g.
her role in the #MeToo movement: TV actor Sulagna Chatterjee speaks up against casting couch; posts chat with agent on social media (The Indian Express, 2017), This is what TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee did when she received a casting couch offer (India Today, 2017), A Bengali actor just proved casting couch is a reality (The Week/PTI, 2017),her writing on Twitter: This Viral Romantic Saga of Two Childhood Sweethearts Will Strengthen Your Belief in True Love (The Better India, 2017), multiple independent and reliable reviews of her work as a screenwriter: Review: Feels Like Ishq is Inconsistent but Pushes the Idea of Love Further (The Quint, 2021), Feels Like Ishq Review: Netflix Anthology Might Not Sweep You Off Your Feet But Is Easy To Love (NDTV, 2021), Feels Like Ishq Review: Netflix's Anthology Series is an Endearing Take on Love (News18, 2021), and a brief, but nontrivial overview of her career: Women Behind The Screen In The Upcoming Show Feels Like Ishq (SheThePeople, 2021). These sources provideampleinformation to further develop the articleandbut do not appear to sufficiently support notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC) ( edit conflict) Additional sources: ‘Feels Like Ishq’ review: All you need is (not too much) love (The Hindu, 2021), Feels Like Ishq review (Rediff, 2021, per WP:ICTFSOURCES), Feels Like Ishq: A few shorts stand out in this Netflix anthology about love (Sify, 2021, per WP:ICTFSOURCES) Beccaynr ( talk) 19:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC) comment and !vote updated per DEFCON5 Beccaynr ( talk) 18:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) update !vote and comment Beccaynr ( talk) 02:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which are the multiple sources covering them (not sure about pronoun) in a significant fashion? WP:GNGThe India Today and Indian Express articles about casting couch? Or the one-paragraph reviews of the episode, she screen-wrote? Or the reproduction of IMDB summary by SheThePeople? The entire series already has a separate entry at our encyc. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Multiple independent and reliable sources indicate her pronoun is "she." All of the sources listed in my comment above support
WP:BASIC notability, which states,
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability
. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability
is the part that follows.- It is strange to argue that reviews of her episode adds to her notability; otherwise for every Netflix series, the entire cast will deserve articles. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is more coverage of Chatterjee than the coverage of her work on the Netflix series, including several articles noted above that focus entirely on her; the reviews are also clearly nontrivial and add to her notability because they each provide WP:SECONDARY commentary that is specifically about her and her work. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Multiple independent and reliable sources indicate her pronoun is "she." All of the sources listed in my comment above support
WP:BASIC notability, which states,
- Hippeus, she has acted in which movie? And directed which notable movie? TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I’m sure she is being confused with an actress of the same name. defcon5 ( talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Might be. Too far away from Indian entertainment scene to know all these details. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Not a significant writer. Yet. No significant coverage of the said person except about her being a writer of a Netflix show. Few brand-promo interview articles. Someone pointed out about her casting couch incident though no mention of it in her Wikipedia article. Someone credited her as an actor and director, though no mention of it in the Wikipedia article. It’s because they are confusing her with the TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee. Completely different person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEFCON5 ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem to be an argument based on wikipedia's policies. A person can have done absolutely nothing of any value in their lives and satisfy wikipedia's guidelines on notability.
Boynamedsue (
talk) 06:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please see Point 3 of
WP:ARTIST. According to me her body of work is not very significant yet. Her only notable credit is being writer of one episode of a Netflix show.
defcon5 (
talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Above the guidelines you cite it states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." She satisfies WP:GNG, and that's that. Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please see Point 3 of
WP:ARTIST. According to me her body of work is not very significant yet. Her only notable credit is being writer of one episode of a Netflix show.
defcon5 (
talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem to be an argument based on wikipedia's policies. A person can have done absolutely nothing of any value in their lives and satisfy wikipedia's guidelines on notability.
Boynamedsue (
talk) 06:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - per DEFCON5. The subject is potentially notable, being a pioneering LGBT screenwriter of India. But I agree that the body of work is not substantial. Neither do I see significant coverage in mainstream news sources to warrant a Wikipedia page. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete concur with others above that the significance threshold is not met. While I respect the Indian Films task force has their own opinions on sourcing... I just don't agree with them (and I note that the page itself admits their own valuation of sources is outside the mainstream WP:RSN-derived consensus.) It just can't be used as defense of sourcing without more rigorous consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Delete One episode of six short films, stated in an interview, one month ago. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Probably early days. scope_creep Talk 09:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete or Draftify. There is some RS here, but not enough to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV. The nominator is correct that interviews are not counted towards RS as they are not independent. With the exclusion of the interviews, there really isn't enough to justify an article... at least not yet. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I think draftify may be the best option for now, as it's possible more quality RS will emerge later as she continues in her career which will allow the subject to pass GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Sulagna Chatterjee
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sulagna Chatterjee ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. FII, Makers, Women'sRepublic etc are not reliable. Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews. There is not a single non-interview source meeting WP:SIGCOV. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Wrote prominent part of a major series with global distribution, plenty of decent-quality sources. Not sure why this was nominated. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 22:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Starred?
Decent quality sources
like? TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC) - The ET article is brand-promotion/advertisement. See Brand equity and WP:TOI. Ditto for the collaboration between Yahoo and Makers. Women's Republic has no editorial policy or mention of who's who, failing WP:NEWSORG. Filmibeat is typical entertainment promo-spam and community does not accept use in BLPs; see these two RSN threads: 1, 2. FII is a glorified community-blog.
- This article shall be redirected to Feels Like Ishq. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that you don't decide what "shall" happen here. A consensus of editors does, and you seem to be making a habit of mischaracterising sources to try to achieve your desired result. The Wikipedia article you cited is completely unrelated to whatever point you thought you were making. The marketing (industry, not advertising) section of the India Times is not an "advertisement". The Yahoo articles are perfectly valid content, and you've completely mischaracterised the organisation involved in the "collaboration". Feminism in India which seems to be a well-established digital media website on par with others we use all the time, and labelling it a "glorified community-blog" just seems to be a baseless attempt to dismiss it. It's also plainly evident that there is more material in WP:RS that is easily available for further expansion, including regarding aspects of her career not even mentioned here. There is some sort of weird attempt here to hold this woman to a higher standard than would generally be the case for any other screenwriter of a major Netflix series, and I can only speculate given the subject matter of said series. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 07:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- FII is going to WP:RSN. As is the ET article. In case you have missed, it is advised in policy that particular sources are provided than generic search results. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- For the nth time, she wrote the screenplay of a part. segment which occupied a sixth of a Netflix series. She did NOT star in it. Maybe, I can get you a dictionary? TrangaBellam ( talk) 08:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- User:TrangaBellam's endeavour to get FII declared as RS has been contested on the noticeboard. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) ( talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Starred?
Speedy keep, bad AfD. This is a discussion about the validity of sources, but no discussion has occurred on the article's talk page, which would be the correct first step prior to nomination for deletion. A discussion has started regarding this on the reliable sources noticeboard, so two parallel discussions are occurring which are essentially the same. This would not prevent for any future deletion discussion resulting from a consensus that the sources were not reliable. Boynamedsue ( talk) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews
.Also, WP:ARTIST:for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series.
TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any policy that states interviews do not constitute significant coverage, might be wrong though.
Boynamedsue (
talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Boynamedsue, check out this comment. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe let Tayi Arajakate know you are including their comment here, TrangaBellam? Boynamedsue, when WP:SECONDARY commentary/coverage is also available, an interview can support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any policy that states interviews do not constitute significant coverage, might be wrong though.
Boynamedsue (
talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Given there isn't going to be a speedy keep, my view is keep, the sources questioned by TrangaBellam seem valid and provide enough coverage to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per
WP:BASIC, e.g.
her role in the #MeToo movement: TV actor Sulagna Chatterjee speaks up against casting couch; posts chat with agent on social media (The Indian Express, 2017), This is what TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee did when she received a casting couch offer (India Today, 2017), A Bengali actor just proved casting couch is a reality (The Week/PTI, 2017),her writing on Twitter: This Viral Romantic Saga of Two Childhood Sweethearts Will Strengthen Your Belief in True Love (The Better India, 2017), multiple independent and reliable reviews of her work as a screenwriter: Review: Feels Like Ishq is Inconsistent but Pushes the Idea of Love Further (The Quint, 2021), Feels Like Ishq Review: Netflix Anthology Might Not Sweep You Off Your Feet But Is Easy To Love (NDTV, 2021), Feels Like Ishq Review: Netflix's Anthology Series is an Endearing Take on Love (News18, 2021), and a brief, but nontrivial overview of her career: Women Behind The Screen In The Upcoming Show Feels Like Ishq (SheThePeople, 2021). These sources provideampleinformation to further develop the articleandbut do not appear to sufficiently support notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC) ( edit conflict) Additional sources: ‘Feels Like Ishq’ review: All you need is (not too much) love (The Hindu, 2021), Feels Like Ishq review (Rediff, 2021, per WP:ICTFSOURCES), Feels Like Ishq: A few shorts stand out in this Netflix anthology about love (Sify, 2021, per WP:ICTFSOURCES) Beccaynr ( talk) 19:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC) comment and !vote updated per DEFCON5 Beccaynr ( talk) 18:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) update !vote and comment Beccaynr ( talk) 02:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which are the multiple sources covering them (not sure about pronoun) in a significant fashion? WP:GNGThe India Today and Indian Express articles about casting couch? Or the one-paragraph reviews of the episode, she screen-wrote? Or the reproduction of IMDB summary by SheThePeople? The entire series already has a separate entry at our encyc. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Multiple independent and reliable sources indicate her pronoun is "she." All of the sources listed in my comment above support
WP:BASIC notability, which states,
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability
. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability
is the part that follows.- It is strange to argue that reviews of her episode adds to her notability; otherwise for every Netflix series, the entire cast will deserve articles. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is more coverage of Chatterjee than the coverage of her work on the Netflix series, including several articles noted above that focus entirely on her; the reviews are also clearly nontrivial and add to her notability because they each provide WP:SECONDARY commentary that is specifically about her and her work. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Multiple independent and reliable sources indicate her pronoun is "she." All of the sources listed in my comment above support
WP:BASIC notability, which states,
- Hippeus, she has acted in which movie? And directed which notable movie? TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I’m sure she is being confused with an actress of the same name. defcon5 ( talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Might be. Too far away from Indian entertainment scene to know all these details. TrangaBellam ( talk) 09:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Not a significant writer. Yet. No significant coverage of the said person except about her being a writer of a Netflix show. Few brand-promo interview articles. Someone pointed out about her casting couch incident though no mention of it in her Wikipedia article. Someone credited her as an actor and director, though no mention of it in the Wikipedia article. It’s because they are confusing her with the TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee. Completely different person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEFCON5 ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem to be an argument based on wikipedia's policies. A person can have done absolutely nothing of any value in their lives and satisfy wikipedia's guidelines on notability.
Boynamedsue (
talk) 06:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please see Point 3 of
WP:ARTIST. According to me her body of work is not very significant yet. Her only notable credit is being writer of one episode of a Netflix show.
defcon5 (
talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Above the guidelines you cite it states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." She satisfies WP:GNG, and that's that. Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please see Point 3 of
WP:ARTIST. According to me her body of work is not very significant yet. Her only notable credit is being writer of one episode of a Netflix show.
defcon5 (
talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem to be an argument based on wikipedia's policies. A person can have done absolutely nothing of any value in their lives and satisfy wikipedia's guidelines on notability.
Boynamedsue (
talk) 06:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - per DEFCON5. The subject is potentially notable, being a pioneering LGBT screenwriter of India. But I agree that the body of work is not substantial. Neither do I see significant coverage in mainstream news sources to warrant a Wikipedia page. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete concur with others above that the significance threshold is not met. While I respect the Indian Films task force has their own opinions on sourcing... I just don't agree with them (and I note that the page itself admits their own valuation of sources is outside the mainstream WP:RSN-derived consensus.) It just can't be used as defense of sourcing without more rigorous consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Delete One episode of six short films, stated in an interview, one month ago. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Probably early days. scope_creep Talk 09:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete or Draftify. There is some RS here, but not enough to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV. The nominator is correct that interviews are not counted towards RS as they are not independent. With the exclusion of the interviews, there really isn't enough to justify an article... at least not yet. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I think draftify may be the best option for now, as it's possible more quality RS will emerge later as she continues in her career which will allow the subject to pass GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.