Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Paneagaden

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. Divided discussion, once again, but in this case, I find those advocating Delete to be more persuasive in making their argument that this article should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Paneagaden

[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:BASIC and WP:PRODUCER and WP:NACTOR. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep: May meet requirements for Notability of Producers for Laloorinu Parayanullathu.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject clearly fails WP:GNG and even more clearly WP:NCREATIVE. An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Translate won't translate one of the web pages used as references, https://web.archive.org/web/20180131200801/http://www.tcvonline.co.in/home/technology/item/8673-2017-08-27-08-59-41 and I can't select the text to paste just the text into Google Translate. Another article (photo and several paragraphs) https://web.archive.org/web/20180207010752/https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/malayalam/kerala+kaumudi-epaper-kaumudi/josaph+panengadan+niryathanayi-newsid-72387710 similarly can't be handled by Google Translate, and dailyhunt.in is blocked from Wikipedia. I think the references in the article probably add up to notability, but I can't read Malayalam and Google Translate is being unhelpful. Perhaps someone who can read Malayalam can provide an analysis of the sources in the article and those that can be found online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added more sources as possible and the article was translated from Ml article before 5 years. Now some links were dead.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article was translated from another language five years ago or that it was posted up at that time can have no influence in a discussion about whether to keep it in the English-language Wikipedia or not. As to the totality of sources, and after retracing my previous search too, we still have one primary source and one that's irrelevant to our subject ("Convention calls for stir against garbage issue") out of a total of six. I can't see any mention of our subject in the Daily Hunt link either and the link to Janmabhumi Daily is about a documentary; our subject is name-dropped in it once as its producer. That's just not "significant coverage", especially when invoking exclusively sources whose reliability cannot be easily checked. We still have very little, if anything. -The Gnome (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that if watch the article now, its notability fails with the lack of multiple sources. But, I meant here, should consider that a major portion of the sources are not functioning now, after five years. At the time of the article creation, it had enough significant coverage.The dead sources had deeply mentioned him and his honour, Sakthan Thampuran award. Still, a functioning source, [1] also covers him deeply.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be only trivial mentions; based on the discussion above, nothing for significant coverage. I find no sources for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, Wikipedia's policy stands only for famous people/celebrities."Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." WP:BASIC. The issue is, there are multiple reliable sources here; but, not functioning now.[2], [3] these dead sources are from leading morning dailies of Kerala and, there were enough significant coverage for the article.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2023 (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.