Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo

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. Clear consensus for deletion following relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo

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

This is a short story with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article consist of primary sources and twitter, facebook and IMDB which are not reliable source. Whpq (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very popular story written by Suman Sen. It also has been adapted to a short film, will release this year. Taniya94 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What significant independent coverage of this in reliable sources can you provide to support notability? Being adapted into a short film is not evidence of notability by itself. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria, no. 3!! Short film is also a kind of motion picture I think.~~ Taniya94 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That criteria specifically states "considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture". So the short film is yet to be made so it does not qualify as a "notable or significant motion picture" nor is this covered by any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Several secondary sources added. see: https://www.sobdermichil.com/2017/11/ssb.html , the last line says, "Suman Sen's Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo has became popular among readers."~~ Taniya94 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not independent, nor significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Yes it is independent. It is a popular news and magazine publisher from Siliguri.~~ Taniya94 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was one of the publishers of the story, so it is not independent. -- Whpq (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Article about the film Accident, http://www.ekabinsha.org/entertainment-movies/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F-%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%A4/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniya94 (talk • contribs)
  - Again, an article from a publisher of the story. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Yes it is one of the publishers of Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo, but it has no relation with the film Accident.~~ Taniya94 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - You can see the entry of this story at Goodreads (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36479077-ekti-ghrinyo-golpo). Sathi.Mondal (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Good Reads is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should Keep this. I am from West Bengal and Suman Sen is indeed a notable name. His book Koto Bhoot! Ki Adbhut! is coming out this November from Barnik Prakashon. 103.75.161.34 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about Sumon Sen so whether he is notable or not has little bearing on the notability of this short story. That he as a book coming out soon also has no bearing on notability for this story. -- Whpq (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Suman Sen he is. btw see - Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria, no.5~~ Taniya94 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point 5 is doesn't apply. It requires that "the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." Sumon Sen's body of work appears to be approximately 2 and the amount of academic study of his life and works is exactly zero. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could use additional participation from Bengali speakers or any neutral parties.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - There is enough sources to believe it reliable.~~ Sumit997 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Sumit997 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What specific reliable sources are you referring too? Because there aren't any so far that qualify as independent and reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per outcome of deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete literally reproducing the short story in a blog, literary magazine or commercial magazine, per the references, is not secondary independent coverage of this story. Secondary independent coverage is commentary about the story in reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. Good Reads is user generated commentary and is not independent secondary coverage. Any opinion or mention there is as good as my opinion of the story here. This short story does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability(books)_Criteria #5, #3, or any of the other criteria. No demonstration of reliable coverage by other media and not shown to be a historically significant author. I would prefer other editors stop making mistaken claims about the criteria this story satisfies - it is a non-notable short story. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Post the deletion review, I've assessed the sources available. There's no particular strength in this article's notability claim. Lourdes 06:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per the comments at the deletion review by at least one native speaker of the language this short story was written in, demonstrating a very convincing lack of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no notability has been demonstrated. References were from the author's Facebook and Twitter and from the publishing outfits, so they were not independent. No independent proof of notability per Wikipedia standards were demonstrated. The article author appears to have a conflict of interest, and the participants in this discussion that provided "keep" votes above are currently under a sockpuppet investigation. –– Latreia (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per my DRV comment.Also per Steve, Lourdes and Latreia.Winged Blades^Godric 10:55, 26 November 2017 (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.