674:(for God's sake, how often one must come back on this page and ponder on the same arguments just because someone likes to lick upon one's wounds of defeat and agony in a democratically cleaned up pique!). Those who want to recommend this page to be deleted have neither a vision about Knowledge (XXG) nor an idea about the very reasons why the page should be there. It is not because the person has become a 'superstar' or an eternal soul, but due to the very viral NOTABILITY he aquired (and continues to aquire) through his acts. As the user above mentioned, Knowledge (XXG) SHOULD NOT delete articles like stock market data just because someone gets irked for their moral policing dreams being disturbed. Santhosh Pandit may not be an accomplished artist in the way we are taught to consider art or film. But his movement has demonstrated other important social possibilities in a society where things have been taken granted like in a text book, for established systems. He has singlehandedly strived, succeeded and proved that it is possible to contemplate and execute such projects as producing, releasing and distributing a so-called feature film. If not for the quality of the film, the caliber and courage of the person indeed calls for a Knowledge (XXG) article proper.
944:
snowball, I would rather suggest to put this up for the normal one week period. Because, both for the marketing managers of
Wikimedia (the cool businessmen behind all that great philosophy), as well as for the policy makers of Knowledge (XXG) (the sincere non-profit geeks), this would defenity give something to learn at least if you come back to this a few years later. Moreover, I am sure that five or ten years later, when Santhosh Pandit would have fallen to oblivion, if Knowledge (XXG) still would exist then, then it would be great fun, for the future sincere contributors to look back at this discusscion from the archives. Or if democracy decides to go for snowball, then it fits me too. Ultimately, it is the 'popularity factor' that decides the success of Knowledge (XXG). If google did not promote Knowledge (XXG) articles in its search results, then Knowledge (XXG) would not be what it is today. Thanks. I quit from this discussion with all due respect to the participants. I think I have stolen some of their valuable time which would have been useful otherwise.
650:
proper censor certificate. He leased only 3 theatres in the initial week, later the film released in over 40 theatres all over Kerala. The film had it home video released and also aired on
Television He is not in news currently since his second film is under production. He will be in news again, once the film hit theatres. We can't delete articles based on current notability basis. This article was decided to be kept based on last AfD with a clear conclusion that the subject is notable and fit to be in Knowledge (XXG).
617:
even months through notoriety, then could I have a page all for myself in
Knowledge (XXG) until the world ends? (That was what Santhosh Pandit did. (Contest this and I will cite references from the article itself.)) There needs to be something that qualifies a piece of moving picture to have its own article in an encyclopedia, isn't it? At least Wikipedians generally thinks so. If else what does this mean:
562:, which may not ever happen again. Remember if dog bit man it is not news, but if man bites dog it definitely is news, but that info does not go into an encyclopedia in these words: "man is an organism that might bite a dog in the most rarest of situaions". And if you find such a statement in an encyclopedia you will stop trusting it as an reliable source. So let us try to make our encyclopedia clean.
841:
becoming himslef a clown, and manages to be in the news for a few weeks or even months through notoriety, then could he have a page all for himself in
Knowledge (XXG) until the world ends?" (This is not a POV. See the reference within the article itself. You could read it straight. No need even to read between the lines). If the answer is yes. Then I Quit, And democracy wins.
583:. Third, films are not events. I'll moreso add the opinion that films are like books in being publications that will endure as long as Knowledge (XXG) endures. Fourth, being news does not mean that material is not encyclopedic, see the nutshell of WP:N, which says that newspapers can be used as sources.
880:
Dear
Malayalee supporters of the article, See what impressions others get about Santhosh Pandit and his film here. They read it has won an award and was 'commercially successful'. They do not know what kind of an award and what the commercial success was. Where does this place Knowledge (XXG)? Please
285:
the article on the only film he made and which was the only reason of his appearance in news for a few months. Even for the most technical of the reasons, this article is not qualified to exist, since the subject was in news only for a single event (and of-course for its reverberations for a few more
678:
I urge very strongly to keep the article and even not to entertain yet another request for deletion in the future regardless of how flamboyant or exuberant
Santhosh Pandit may continue to show up in the public life of Kerala. As a person of article, he has already earned enough to be in the pages of
578:
WP:BLP1E does not by itself create a deletion argument. The topic must also be unworthy of keeping as a redirect. If the one-event is notable, pretty much by definition we won't be deleting the redirect of the person involved. Next, single events can be notable—a benchmark that has been mentioned
446:
The person is well notable now, his first film was also very notable. He was covered and interviewed by all reputed media in Kerala. His second film is ready for release and the progress of this film is also reported with importance in leading
Malayalam channels. The article on the person has enough
840:
Unfortunately this is where the article lead uninformed readers to. This was not a major film. And this was not even a normal film. Let me repeat what I said earlier: "If somebody make an amateur video and screen it in a couple of rented theatres, and make enough noise in media to attract attention
649:
I am not interested in an argument, but since you dragged
Keralites into this, I am also from Kerala and I know Santhosh Pandit is well known and notable now. It is not his fault that he made a film all by his efoort, that should be appreciated. Also, his film is not an amateur video, it received a
553:
in the last quarter of 2011. It is a fact needing no proof. Shall I copy paste my previous request here: "Could you provide links to some reliable newspaper report on his second film since Jan 2012? Could anybody give some evidence that it is infact under production?". The argument is that
Santhosh
318:
There is sufficient significant coverage in secondary sources to indicate WP:GNG. There is editorial oversight on enough of these sources to indicate WP:RS. There is however a fair amount of puffery which should be redacted. The discography and telefilm sections need to be referenced. The claims in
616:
Problem two: Do every piece of film screened in a theatre anywhere in the world has a right to be in wikipedia? If I make an amateur video and screen it in a rented theatre, and make enough noise in media to attract attention, become myself a clown, and manages to be in the news for a few weeks or
280:
The subject was in news just for only one event: an amateur film he made all by himself (acted, directed, written, ...), and which he screened in just one rented theater. And it was in news not for its quality but for its notoriety, for the infamy it earned, for the peculiar way such a bad product
380:
In AfD3 BLP1E was not proved wrong. It failed due to an 'overwhelming' majority of keep votes. But should AfDs be decided by voting majority or for the issue raised? Why AfD4 on the same grounds after a failed AfD3? Because the subject is not anymore in the news and BLP1E is better proved now for
485:
You made your point already and I don't think you hane to make your point again and again and challenge the opinion of all other
Wikipedians. Please wait for the AfD decision. Santosh Pandit related news , articles and interviews were there in leading dailies like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi,
943:
This is from the originator of the AfD. Obviously, this is going to be a snowball. Originally when I proposed the deletion, I did not really expect any success. But it is unfortunate yet that people out here in our part of the world do not yet realize what an encyclopedia is. Eventhough fit for
470:
is not yet answered. His second film was only an ambitious announcement or rather a boasting during the hype of the first film. It is not heard of ever since. Could you provide links to some reliable newspaper report on his second film since Jan 2012? Could anybody give some evidence that it is
246:
Knowledge (XXG) is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is
862:: The subject has won award for his first film. Thus making him notable enough as been recognized for the work. Winning award is different than just being commercially successful. His other films not getting success or coverage is not changing the past. §§
534:
I don't think notability needs to be re-established time and again, please go through the 16 references available in Santhosh Pandit article and just see in which all print and visual media is he covered and also from whom he received an award.
402:
From what I can tell Santhosh just got more notable since the original article was made. Deleting it was probably the right choice before but keeping is probably the right choice now. I do not see any major problems with this article.
500:
1. See wikipedia guidelines on AfD discussions, and see archived AfDs. This is a discussion and every new argument can be, and ought to be answered. No offense intended, I'm just pointing out what you might have overseen.
819:
One major film is enough. This is not the situation that ONEEVENT was meant for. Though there is a possibility of merging, I wouldn't advise it, because someone who has done 1 successful film usually makes more of them.
266:. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article
204:
104:
99:
94:
465:
His first and only film was material for television news. (It did not find place in any of the reputed print dailies). And an encyclopedia is not place for shortlived news-entertainment. The question of
794:
281:
was received (with the viewers celebrating with oaths and abusive language). So even if we should have this 'great' incident recorded in the 'history' of cinema, then we could merge this article into
486:
Times of India, Deccan Chronicle etc. The shooting location reports and songs of his second film was covered by Asianet, Indiavision, Reporter etc. You can also find videos in YouTube.
289:
And please note that there is no difference of opinion with the quality of the article. It is indeed well written. The problem is with the notability of the subject. That
198:
159:
89:
164:
319:
the first paragraph are assertions which require citations. I think the best option is to keep the article, but tease out each issue in turn on the article talk page.
772:
754:- for right or wrong reason, Santhosh Pandit is/was notable. Now as in when time progress, if he is not in the news headlines, how is the notability disappears.--
275:
and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
679:
Knowledge (XXG) by now. Remember, Knowledge (XXG) is not a pulp newspaper that keeps deleting or 'forgetting' articles as someone just feels like.
605:
neither do they know about his film neither do they know why it became news. People in Kerala knows why I am raising this issue. The case with
895:
I am not Malayalee. Do your home work. And in case you think that some info is presented wrongly, edit it and help present it correctly. §§
335:
It seems that you are not familiar with the issue. I have just made my point clearer. Could you please reconsider your opinion? Thanks.
132:
127:
136:
918::already highlighted above by several users and , request closing this fourth nomination and a waste of time for AFD contributors.--
17:
953:
936:
904:
890:
871:
850:
831:
808:
786:
763:
744:
717:
689:
659:
630:
592:
571:
544:
529:
513:
495:
480:
456:
434:
412:
390:
371:
344:
328:
308:
58:
119:
613:
to laugh about, and talk about and have fun with. Nobody is going to remember the name Santhosh Pandit after a couple of years.
618:
219:
186:
63:
972:
40:
601:
who are responding on this, make an impression on reading the article itself and the references. They do not know
900:
867:
588:
180:
881:
don't make Knowledge (XXG) a laughing stock. The article gives wrong impression about this guy and his work.
740:
176:
408:
968:
930:
36:
421:
The problem is not with the article. The problem is with the notability of the subject. Please look at
226:
949:
896:
886:
863:
846:
713:
626:
584:
567:
525:
476:
430:
386:
340:
304:
123:
921:
324:
282:
212:
759:
736:
364:
555:
467:
422:
294:
236:
804:
782:
404:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
967:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
701:
192:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
705:
580:
53:
355:
945:
882:
842:
709:
653:
622:
606:
602:
563:
538:
521:
507:
489:
472:
450:
426:
382:
336:
300:
115:
71:
320:
827:
755:
732:
728:
359:
520:
2. Please provide specific references to establish reliable media coverage. Thanks.
800:
778:
153:
504:
You keep on making the same point and argument all the time, that is what I said.
554:
Pandit was news, and just short lived news. Not fit for an encyclopedia. Hence
358:, not sure what has changed since AfD 3 which was an overwhelming keep result.
610:
291:
the subject was notable for only one event which has now lost its news value
237:
WP:BLP1E. Biography of a living person. Subject notable only for one event
822:
79:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Santhosh Pandit (4th nomination)
598:
264:
otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual
597:
Problem one: We are going too technical here. Those from outside
961:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
735:, this guy is notable enough although for the wrong reasons. --
795:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
149:
145:
141:
211:
105:
Articles for deletion/Santhosh Pandit (4th nomination)
100:
Articles for deletion/Santhosh Pandit (3rd nomination)
95:
Articles for deletion/Santhosh Pandit (2nd nomination)
225:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
975:). No further edits should be made to this page.
273:It is not the case that the event is significant
8:
793:Note: This debate has been included in the
771:Note: This debate has been included in the
792:
773:list of India-related deletion discussions
770:
87:
381:those who are too technical about it.
621:? Thanks. And my God! This is a job!
255:only in the context of a single event
253:If reliable sources cover the person
90:Articles for deletion/Santhosh Pandit
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
447:references from reliable sources.
85:
619:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films)
24:
558:. He just became famous for an
1:
609:was just a 'crazy' news for
992:
242:An extract of the policy:
471:infact under production?
235:Proposes deletion as per
964:Please do not modify it.
954:16:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
937:10:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
905:21:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
891:15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
872:08:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
851:16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
832:00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
809:17:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
787:17:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
764:08:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
745:06:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
718:06:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
690:06:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
660:05:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
631:05:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
593:04:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
572:03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
545:03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
530:02:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
514:03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
496:02:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
481:01:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
457:01:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
435:23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
413:23:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
391:22:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
372:22:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
345:22:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
329:22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
309:22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
59:04:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
84:AfDs for this article:
293:. Please do focus on
549:Santhosh Pandit was
297:in the discussion.
283:Krishnanum Radhayum
811:
798:
789:
776:
672:Very Strong Keep:
369:
67:
64:non-admin closure
983:
966:
933:
927:
924:
799:
777:
688:
687:
684:
656:
581:Balloon boy hoax
541:
510:
492:
453:
365:
362:
354:Appears to pass
230:
229:
215:
167:
157:
139:
61:
56:
48:The result was
34:
991:
990:
986:
985:
984:
982:
981:
980:
979:
973:deletion review
962:
931:
925:
922:
897:AnimeshKulkarni
864:AnimeshKulkarni
685:
682:
680:
654:
607:Santhosh Pandit
603:Santhosh Pandit
585:Unscintillating
539:
508:
490:
451:
368:
360:
262:If that person
172:
163:
130:
116:Santhosh Pandit
114:
111:
109:
80:
75:
72:Santhosh Pandit
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
989:
987:
978:
977:
957:
956:
940:
939:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
875:
874:
856:
855:
854:
853:
835:
834:
813:
812:
790:
767:
766:
748:
747:
721:
720:
694:
676:
675:
667:
665:
664:
663:
662:
651:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
614:
536:
518:
517:
516:
505:
487:
460:
459:
448:
440:
439:
438:
437:
416:
415:
396:
395:
394:
393:
375:
374:
366:
348:
347:
332:
331:
312:
278:
277:
269:
259:
233:
232:
169:
110:
108:
107:
102:
97:
92:
86:
83:
78:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
988:
976:
974:
970:
965:
959:
958:
955:
951:
947:
942:
941:
938:
935:
934:
929:
928:
917:
914:
913:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
888:
884:
879:
878:
877:
876:
873:
869:
865:
861:
858:
857:
852:
848:
844:
839:
838:
837:
836:
833:
829:
825:
824:
818:
815:
814:
810:
806:
802:
796:
791:
788:
784:
780:
774:
769:
768:
765:
761:
757:
753:
750:
749:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:Rebecca Black
730:
729:Justin Bieber
726:
723:
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:ViswaPrabha's
703:
700:
697:
696:
695:
692:
691:
673:
670:
669:
668:
661:
658:
657:
655:Anish Viswa
648:
632:
628:
624:
620:
615:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:
594:
590:
586:
582:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
548:
547:
546:
543:
542:
540:Anish Viswa
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
509:Anish Viswa
503:
502:
499:
498:
497:
494:
493:
491:Anish Viswa
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
469:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
455:
454:
452:Anish Viswa
445:
442:
441:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
418:
417:
414:
410:
406:
401:
398:
397:
392:
388:
384:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
370:
363:
357:
353:
350:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
330:
326:
322:
317:
314:
313:
311:
310:
306:
302:
298:
296:
292:
287:
284:
276:
274:
270:
267:
265:
260:
257:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
243:
240:
238:
228:
224:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
178:
175:
174:Find sources:
170:
166:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
82:
81:
73:
70:
68:
65:
60:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
963:
960:
920:
919:
915:
859:
821:
816:
751:
724:
698:
693:
677:
671:
666:
652:
560:uncommon act
559:
550:
537:
506:
488:
449:
444:Strong Keep:
443:
405:Salimfadhley
399:
351:
315:
299:
290:
288:
279:
272:
271:
263:
261:
254:
252:
245:
244:
241:
234:
222:
216:
208:
201:
195:
189:
183:
173:
77:
76:
49:
47:
31:
28:
725:Strong Keep
708:comments --
704:Agree with
699:Strong Keep
199:free images
946:Austria156
883:Austria156
843:Austria156
737:Sreejith K
727:Just like
710:Jacob.jose
623:Austria156
611:Malayalees
564:Austria156
522:Austria156
473:Austria156
427:Austria156
425:. Please.
383:Austria156
337:Austria156
321:isfutile:P
301:Austria156
286:months).
969:talk page
801:• Gene93k
779:• Gene93k
686:വിശ്വപ്രഭ
37:talk page
971:or in a
756:Rameshng
556:WP:BLP1E
468:WP:BLP1E
423:WP:BLP1E
295:WP:BLP1E
160:View log
55:Dipankan
39:or in a
702:WP:SNOW
205:WP refs
193:scholar
133:protect
128:history
683:Prabha
599:Kerala
356:WP:GNG
177:Google
137:delete
828:talk
681:Viswa
361:Monty
220:JSTOR
181:books
165:Stats
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
950:talk
932:XЯaɣ
916:Keep
901:talk
887:talk
868:talk
860:Keep
847:talk
817:Keep
805:talk
783:talk
760:talk
752:Keep
741:talk
731:and
714:talk
627:talk
589:talk
568:talk
551:news
526:talk
477:talk
431:talk
409:talk
400:Keep
387:talk
352:Keep
341:talk
325:talk
316:Keep
305:talk
247:met:
213:FENS
187:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
50:keep
926:ℬig
903:)
870:)
823:DGG
579:is
367:845
239:.
227:TWL
162:•
158:– (
952:)
889:)
849:)
830:)
807:)
797:.
785:)
775:.
762:)
743:)
716:)
629:)
591:)
570:)
528:)
479:)
433:)
411:)
403:--
389:)
343:)
327:)
307:)
207:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
52:.
948:(
923:Ð
899:(
885:(
866:(
845:(
826:(
803:(
781:(
758:(
739:(
712:(
625:(
587:(
566:(
524:(
475:(
429:(
407:(
385:(
339:(
323:(
303:(
268:.
258:.
231:)
223:·
217:·
209:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
179:(
171:(
168:)
156:)
118:(
66:)
62:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.